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

[Patrick Larkin]

Well, I must've stumbled into the David Fincher Worship page. I understand now that you're not allowed to say anything negative about a director who's work you value enough to be concerned with. Most directors I could care less.

And just as some have said I slighted the man, so have some overvalued him - some even predicting that he will end up being good enough to be remembered in 20 years!

I dont really care if he's "doing it for money" as others have suggested. Since when is this so wrong?

you're right. i'm wrong.

maybe paul thomas anderson can direct the next Austin Powers movie. Austin, and his shagadelic sidekick played by julianne moore take on Mr. Flotsam (played by philip seymour hoffman of course) and his evil crime syndicate. yeah baby!

and maybe the coens will tackle the next Scream sequel. damn, the coens would really make a fantastic horror flick. they should have passed on The Man Who Wasn't There to do this now.

you see, they need more money. whats wrong with that?

 

[Ricardo C]

you see, they need more money. whats wrong with that?

What IS wrong with money, Patrick? Can you explain that? As long as he puts the same passion and effort into the "money" picture as he does with the rest of his projects, where's the evil?

 

[SteveGon]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I may have missed it, but what happened to Rendezvous With Rama?

 

[Mark E J]

And just as some have said I slighted the man, so have some overvalued him - some even predicting that he will end up being good enough to be remembered in 20 years!

I assume the last statement was aimed me. Well Patrick I think Fincher's current body of work alone insures that he'll be remembered 20 years from now. You mentioned Polanski earlier, he has not produced anything of note since the 70's yet he is remembered 20 years later. William Friedkin also is remembered 20 years later based mainly on The French Connection and The Exorcist. So to suggest that DF will be remembered 20 years from now is in no way overvalueing him.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I haven't read through this entire thread so I may have missed it, but what happened to Rendezvous With Rama?

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

Umm...Chuck...what sequel did Cameron direct in 1989?
-Dennis

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Yes, I typed 1989 instead of 1986. I noticed it shortly thereafter, but the discussion went far away from it so it didn't matter. 1989 was The Abyss - obviously not a sequel.
Why the ?
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

I'm really anal about stuff like that! But you get a for knowing the right year after all!
-Dennis

 

[Ricardo C]

I think the series of posts after mine sum it up. Even if Rama wasn't ready, surely something else more meritous than MI# was...

Such as..?

Like it or not, this is the project he CHOSE. No one forced him to take it. If he accepted it, why not GIVE THE GUY THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT and think he might actually have something interesting in mind for it?

 

[Jacob_St]

It's obvious to me that Fincher is selling out. Most directors nowadays have to sell out from time to time in order to get a hit. I'm sure sooner or later Fincher will make another unique film but he has to have a few box office money makers before a big studio will back another "Fight Club". If you want to make big budget movies you have to prove you can make moneymakers. I'm going to skip MI3 and wait for the next real Fincher project. I don't hold it against the guy because I realize it is just business.

 

[MickeS]

Well... here something from http://www.davidfincher.net/news0016.html

That doesn't sound as definitive as some of the other reports... but he still seems interested in the project. I hope it happens.
/Mike

 

[Carlo_M]

He definitely sounds like if he's involved, he's going to be The Man. If that's the case, I trust Fincher enough to make a film worthy of having his name as Director.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Mike,

Thanks for that tidbit...a bit enlightening for his fans. Very interesting that he wanted the first one, but could not get it, even after Se7en. So at least we can nix the wasted speculation about selling out or his intent wrt MI3.

By the by, great interview with Jodie Foster on Panic Room, thrillers, and DF in the upper left corner. Highly recommended.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Richard WWW]

I like Fincher. I'm glad he's making MI3. I'd have gone to see it anyway, probably. I see all the big event films (though I passed on Scorpion King). Now I'm even more interested.

Don't really understand why everyone's so worked up about what good or bad things this will do to Fincher's legacy. Can't Fincher worry about that?

Peace out.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Well I didn't get back for several days but Patrick your attitude astounds me.
You can hate IMDb all you want, but every film more than 5 years old on that top 100 list is a well-respected film of some significance.
In fact Clockwork Orange ranks very high there too.
To be honest, I think your attitude toward the opinions of others sucks. I feel that you are coming across as elitist and condencending of others with "inferior" film knowledge, thus the disrespect of IMDb despite the list being rather similar to lists like AFI or Sight and Sound - with the recent years adjustment taken into account which I mentioned right away.
If you are going to go down the IMDb top 250 and dismiss every film on the list that is more than 5 years old as being unworthy of greatness, I certainly look forward to that.
We can start with the top 20
Godfather
Shawshank Redemption
Godfather pt 2
Schindlers List
Citizen Kane
Casablanca
Seven Samurai
Star Wars
Dr. Strangelove
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Rear Window
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Usual Suspects
Empire Strikes Back
Pulp Fiction
Pyscho
North by Northwest
Silence of the Lambs
It's a Wonderful Life
Goodfellas
Bold are in the AFI top 20, Italic are in the AFI top 100.
Seven Samurai was not eligible for the AFI.
So only Shawshank and Usual Suspects stand out in the least, and both are very well respected films. In fact both have shown the ability to grow in people's esteem. Not unlike another classic...Citizen Kane.
Plus, the AFI has Clockwork Orange at 46, while IMDb has it at 60. Not a large amount of discrepancy there either...again almost identical if you take out the films from the last 5 years.
So if you are going to slam people's opinions, or a list like IMDb, please try and go on fact rather than a snobby opinion.
Maybe if you hadn't already implied that people need to see the masters, as if they hadn't, I might be more likely to not be so upset.

 

[Seth Paxton]

BTW, the only point regarding newer films on IMDb is that they tend to slide down to more reasonable spots after the first couple of years...like Titanic or Gladiator did for example.

So Fight Club might slip down a bit more, but clearly that film is going down as a great moment in cinema just like much of Kubrick's work did.

You shouldn't really be angered by that.

And I said a long time ago that perhaps Fincher could actually do something with the story/film that would make it great. I assumed that was at least part of his interest in doing it.

I'm sure Fincher is getting pitched LOTS OF STUFF that he could make money with and passing on it all the time.

Now he might pick up on MI3 because it can make big money and help propel the Rama project, but even in that case I would think that he is picking MI3 as the "money" project over other big money films because he thinks he could do something artistic with it while making money too.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Whoa Seth, relax.

First point: My IMDB remark wasn't about the relevance of its "list" but about the relevance of the site itself! You really can't use IMDB as any sort of reference. It lacks credibility in how it gathers its information and the publishing of that information. You spend a great deal of time expounding on the relevance of its list when in reality, it is merely a poll of what technologically empowered folks happen to like.

You don't need to like my attitude. I don't like lots of peoples attitudes - am I the one to call ANY film SHIT? I don't think so. I think that people in this forum like to dogpile anyone with any sort of varied viewpoint. Just because my opinion if that F is not an elite director (as some people here do) and I won't pussyfoot around that point, does not mean that I am condescending.

I'm sorry but no matter what you say, I will never accept the fact that anyone can hold DAVID FINCHER in the same light as STANLEY KUBRICK.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think that this is Seth's problem, Patrick.

I'm sorry but no matter what you say, I will never accept the fact that anyone can hold DAVID FINCHER in the same light as STANLEY KUBRICK.

I've learned to accept lots of things. I've learned to accept that our society in general (the U.S.) hold sports athletes as role models over, not 100's, not 1000's, but millions of more deserving, more appropriate, more honest men and women. That Crossroads made as much at the box office as Fight Club. That a film as well-made as Black Hawk Down, as RELEVANT and timeless, did not win Best Picture, nor was it nominated.
Mostly I've learned to accept that there are people who cannot understand that other people will have different opinions from theirs and will still be as discerning, as intelligent, as RIGHT as they are.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Scott Weinberg]

Why do I always show up late to the fun threads?
If I could offer a completely impartial opinion, I'm a bit taken aback by the rudeness of one poster in particular.
In response to this particular thought:

You really can't use IMDB as any sort of reference.

I've been a critic for over three years, and I cannot imagine doing my job without the IMDb. I'd love to hear some specific reasons as to why it's such a poor reference. Actor names (as well as every movie they've ever been in), character names, studios/distributors, MPAA ratings, running times, quotes, etc. Its depth of information is simply staggering. In my mind, the only "questionable" part of the IMDb is the User Reviews (as several of them are quite inane), but there's nothing wrong with giving Joe Moviegoer a chance to speak his mind.
If there's a comparable database out there that improves upon what the IMDb has, I'd be thrilled to know about it.
Back on topic: As far as Fincher (one of my favorite filmmakers) directing an entry in a movie series that I really dislike...
I'm thrilled to have a reason to look forward to a MI:3 at all! If you had asked me how to start off on the right foot with an MI:3, I'd have said "Go get David Fincher to direct it and that'll pique my interest!"

 

[Paul_D]

I don't like lots of peoples attitudes - am I the one to call ANY film SHIT?

(Paul grits his teeth and bites his toungue - slowly couting to 10)
Calling a film shit doesn't show disrespect to the opinions of others? Claiming disbelief at and plainly refusing to accept any opinions IS showing disrespect to the opinions of others. (Why does this fact ned to be spelt out?) Clearly have a very inaccurate definition of the word opinion, and what expressing one means.