Fincher signs on for "Mission: Impossible 3" (FLASH! replaced by Joe Carnahan) (1 Viewer)

[Chuck Mayer]

Patrick,
I even checked my old posts to see if the perceived "lack of respect" towards Kubrick could have even been implied in anything I said.
Nope. I first mentioned him as a "great director" on the first page. And when Luc asked if I was 'honestly' comparing Fincher to the great directors, what did I say...

Not Kubrick, no. Nor Scorcese.

I have shown nothing but respect towards Kubrick, and the other greats discussed here. But my opinion that Fincher's talent is equal to theirs, that his filmography is exceptional for his age, has been ridiculed.
And then Fincher was 'doing it for the money.' I think he might be the only director getting disrespected here...for going his own way, and not making preconceived 'important' films. If Fincher is as good as I think he is...he will make the film worthwhile, not the other way around.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Duane Robinson]

Inhale, Exhale. Now count to 10 and slowly back away from the thread.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Chuck -
I don't think you, in particular, disrespected K. I think the whole thread turned out that way.
Way back, I stated my dismay that Fincher is doing this movie. My dismay was that I thought F was on an upward trajectory in artistic importance. Maybe someday joining that elite group of directors I mentioned. (In time, in time) The top of that group, I believe, is Kubrick. Many many others regard Kubrick as the greatest American filmmaker of all time.
Then a Fincher and FC fan says that FC is great and CO is shit. Its hard not be incredulous.

 

[Mike Graham]

I'm coming into this thread late, just going to add that I think M:I 3 would be spectacular with Fincher at helm. Even though "Panic Room" was a disappointment, I believe Fincher could do a lot with espionage and undercover storylines.

Also, this sequel will probably be a lot darker visually speaking then the previous films in the franchise. Andrew Kevin Walker will probably do his fair share of rewrites, and hopefully add an edge or two to Cruise's production. Plus, I hope those god awful face masks are forgotten in this next installment...

 

[Richard Kim]

I'm coming into this thread late, just going to add that I think M:I 3 would be spectacular with Fincher at helm.

Alot of people in this forum said the same thing about M:I 2, that with John Woo directing, it would be great. Turned out to be subpar. If the producers and Paramount don't give Fincher complete freedom, the same thing will probably happen.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Richard,

Agreed. My hope is that Cruise backs Fincher like Pitt did. It allowed him a lot of leeway. When the "star" is on board with the director, the studio will acquiesce quite a bit.

Patrick,

I agree with your assessment of Kubrick. It is right on. He is not my personal favorite, but his filmography speaks for itself. I do not agree that anyone in this thread bashed him or CO, but I can see how it would look that way.

Like I said, I think Fincher can make this a winner. It is certainly in him.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Carlo_M]

Carlo -- Lord of the Rings wasn't a commercial franchise. In fact, it was an important work of literature that was never made into a live action film. Now, if only Fincher would choose such a piece, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

You misunderstood my post completely.
1. I know about LoTR as a work of fiction - I've read it four going on five times and have studied it.
2. Some (not a lot, but some) were disappointed w/ Jackson's decision to helm this film because it was "commercial" - it had a huge built-in fanbase and wasn't a "Jackson original" story. These people wanted PJ to do something original, his own stuff.
In this way, it's very similar to someone who liked Fincher's old stuff and wishing he wouldn't do something so "commercial" - but my point is that he (like Jackson) can do something commercial and make it good (or great, IMO re: LoTR). Just because these directors tackle something that some people consider commercial (aka "beneath them") doesn't mean that they won't do a good job of it.
Here we all are critiquing Fincher's choice for something that he hasn't even begun principal photography on!

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Carlo --

Your analogy is way off. LOTS of great films were based on novels. Kubrick was already referenced as doing King's The Shining. The commerciality of MI3 isn't in question. Its the doing a sequel in a franchise which is questionable. All of Fincher's movies were "commercial."

Fincher taking on a big Hollywood franchise s completely different. (Except that you'll probably get able to get MI3 glasses at Burger King too.)

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Like you, Carlo, I expect Fincher will make this film worth watching. I understood your point regarding a respected director doing something that is commercially marketable and making something special out of it. Granted, PJ had one hell of a lot more to work with re: LOTR vs. MI3. In the end, it's a big gamble for a venerated director in modern Hollywood to say...Hey MI3, that sounds great! Especially one who was tooled by the system over a decade ago on a second sequel. In the end, it's his choice. It'll be on his filmography. While I doubt it will be his finest work ever, I expect it will be worth the price of admission.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[ShawnCoghill]

One Thing I hate is when People say "Sell Out",because Thats what there there to do,,If you can sell your ideas and make it marketable that is Great,You just have to make sure while your making the money your not loosing your integrity toward your ideas of film.Some of the biggest money making films are also recognized as some of the best films of all time.If you can transcend the barriers and sell your idea make a ton of filthy greenbacks,but at the same time keep your ideas clean,that is the Way to go,and I think Fincher Can do so,,just because you'll see MI3 oozing out of every pore of every action loving 13 year old kid,and seeping thru the walls of McDonald's doesn't mean the film itself will suffer.If He does It,he needs in writing before he starts the ability to have final say.Hey If PT Anderson can get it "and deserve it" then DF surely can do the same.

 

[Paul_D]

Coming back.

This forum is writing the film off as insignificant. Even going as far as calling it "shit."

THE FORUM??? Hasty judgement is an understatement of biblical proportions. And I'm not writing it off. I've seen the film in its entirety. I've read the novel, and I've come to my own, informed opinion. I used the word "shit", which you so amusingly repeat in many subsequent posts to make the point that there are other opinions to your's, and that they are no better and no worse, however vulgar or unnecessary their method of expression is. In fact your later posts read as if you defending Kubrick from a tyrannous attack. NO ONE IS ATTACKING KUBRICK!!!! I'm not interested in expressing my opinions of his other films here, though I will say that I like them all a lot more than Clockwork Orange.
In fact, I've forgotten what this argument is about. I believe we are in total agreement regarding the TOPIC of the thread. It's simply the manner in which you've expressed yourself that has given me, and others, cause for comment. The simple fact is, that a debate over how amazing Kubrick is has no place in this discussion. Why do you keep bringing him up in post after post after post. Start a Kubrick thread if you want to endlessly post your admiration.
I know I'm probably adding wood to the fire by posting this, but your indirect references to the opinions in my posts and comments upon them are downright offensive.

 

[Carlo_M]

So Patrick, if my analogy isn't appropriate to how you feel, is it then true that you don't think Fincher can make a good movie out of the MI franchise?

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Carlo --

Actually, I think David Fincher would make a fine film no matter what he does. He has talent. My only point is that he, IMO, is wasting it on MI3.

 

[Carlo_M]

He has talent. My only point is that he, IMO, is wasting it on MI3.

But that's the problem here. You're making judgments on something that's not even made! And if HE (Fincher) wants to make it, who are we to judge that it is a "waste" - are we now in a position to tell others what they can/can't do? I realize it's your opinion, but to make it based on absolutely no empirical evidence is probably what's chafing those of us who aren't into making these kind of snap judgments.

You have already deemed MI3 a waste of his time, and will probably not be happy no matter how good of a movie DF makes it. That could be construed as close-mindedness.

 

[Jay E]

But that's the problem here. You're making judgments on something that's not even made! And if HE (Fincher) wants to make it, who are we to judge that it is a "waste" - are we now in a position to tell others what they can/can't do? I realize it's your opinion, but to make it based on absolutely no empirical evidence is probably what's chafing those of us who aren't into making these kind of snap judgments.
You have already deemed MI3 a waste of his time, and will probably not be happy no matter how good of a movie DF makes it. That could be construed as close-mindedness.

And if Fincher signed on to do Battlefield Earth 2, I hope you would be as open-minded about that also.
I'm a little disappointed in this news, especially after hearing some of the projects his name was being attached too. I'm also getting tired of sequel after sequel after sequel in Hollywood. A director like Fincher has the ability to get original projects put into production, especially after the success of Panic Room. This is one less chance of seeing that happen. However I will wait & see, knowing that it can't be as bad as MI2.
Oh and Scorcese did direct a sequel, The Color of Money.

 

[Patrick Sun]

How about we just let David Fincher be David Fincher.
The rest of this thread could be settled in the Poll/tourney area.

 

[Brian_J]

I dont really care if he's "doing it for money" as others have suggested. Since when is this so wrong? So if you are doing something for money you are doing a poorer job than if you are doing it for little or nothing? Anyone here work for free? The fact is we all do our jobs for money to a greater or lesser degree.

Brian

 

[Mark E J]

You know what I find exeptionaly funny? The the fact that 20 years from now Patrick Larkin will probably jumping on some new and promising director saying "Well I think he's good but I wouldn't compare him to the likes of Fincher."

 

[Dome Vongvises]

David Fincer is the worst director ever!!! He's a hack!!! This isn't Dome posting!!! It's Emod, the anti-Dome!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
!!!Thump!!!
Sorry about that guys, you know how those evil dopplegangers are.
Seriously, I'm curious to see how Fincher handles the series. You've got Brian De Palma's take on it (Hitchcockian moments), you've got John Woo's take on it (gun play, doves flying everywhere), and I really want to see Fincher's take on it (dark, brooding atmosphere). BTW, the Mission: Impossible series ain't that bad, Patrick Larkin.

 

[Ricardo C]

What Dome said