Movies Better Director: James Cameron vs David Fincher

Cameron vs Fincher

  • Total voters
    107
Fincher's too niche for me. It's gimmicky how all his stuff has this dark, colorless, somber tone....both visually and in terms of mood. I'd like to see him attempt other styles.
 
Fincher is super consistent IMO and I tend to like his work. I think Zodiac is his best film and is probably his only work comparable to Cameron's best. T1, T2, and Aliens are all 10/10 to me. The Abyss is underrated, True Lies is hilarious, and honestly, Titanic will probably the standard for all time for romantic movies.
 
I would say Cameron has some of the best films but also the worst on that list. Fincher has better overall quality. Also some of y’all are way overrating aliens. It’s a good movie but it’s not some greatest ever film
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zer
Cameron easily. He made an entire film underwater, I mean c'mon.

Watch this nightmare (awesome documentary...), and tell me if Fincher has that type of leadership skill. I honestly don't know who else in movie history could've pulled this off
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zer
Cameron has Aliens and T2 so he instantly wins this.

Fincher will always have his few big ones aswell. WTF was Mother though? That film sucked.

In the 90's both were phenoms but now? They are hit and miss for me.
 
Cameron hasnt made a great Film since the early 90s.

He spend the last Decade trying to convince people that Terminator Genishyt and Dark Fart are good movies, as well as shooting 10 Avatar Sequels nobody asked for.
 
The more I learn about the reality of film making with the schedules they have to work with the less impressed I am by Fincher's work.

He literally takes twice as long to make movies as similar directors working with similar budgets. He does half as many setups a day and shoots 5-10x the amount of takes in pursuit of perfection. The results can be great but in the end its not my preferred style.

Speilberg shot Saving Private Ryan in less days than Fincher shot Fight Club. That the kind of thing I find impressive.
 
Drain Bamage said:
The more I learn about the reality of film making with the schedules they have to work with the less impressed I am by Fincher's work.

He literally takes twice as long to make movies as similar directors working with similar budgets. He does half as many setups a day and shoots 5-10x the amount of takes in pursuit of perfection. The results can be great but in the end its not my preferred style.

Speilberg shot Saving Private Ryan in less days than Fincher shot Fight Club. That the kind of thing I find impressive.
Click to expand...

To be fair I think Fight Club has more interesting performances in it than Private Ryan but I find too often Fincher becomes a bit bland, compared to the kind of directors he's often compared to(Tarantino, Coppola, Marty, etc) I don't really see much true inspiration.

Partly as well I spose I find the lives of tech bro billionares rather boring subjects for films.
 
Did we already do Fincher vs Nolan? because that seems more fitting.

There are not many directors on James Cameron's level, but to specify exactly where he's better than Fincher it's in his grasp of story. A Fincher story is interesting, beautiful to behold, but might go on for too long. James Cameron's films are thrilling and gripping, emotional, soft as well as hard; but they may not say anything new, nor uncover uncharted territories. People think these minuses subtract more than they should. His sense of scale and spectacle never outstrip the story.
 
moreorless87 said:
To be fair I think Fight Club has more interesting performances in it than Private Ryan but I find too often Fincher becomes a bit bland, compared to the kind of directors he's often compared to(Tarantino, Coppola, Marty, etc) I don't really see much true inspiration.

Partly as well I spose I find the lives of tech bro billionares rather boring subjects for films.
Click to expand...

I agree that Fight Club is more interesting but SPR is a nearly 3 hour authentic WW2 movie that to this day has action that hasnt been topped and Speilberg shot it in 59 days or something like that which I find very impressive. Theres a interview on Youtube between Speilberg and PTA and PTA is almost shocked when Speilberg tells him that fact and PTA states it would have taken him that long to shoot the beach scene alone.
 
A.A. Riggs said:
Did we already do Fincher vs Nolan? because that seems more fitting.

There are not many directors on James Cameron's level, but to specify exactly where he's better than Fincher it's in his grasp of story. A Fincher story is interesting, beautiful to behold, but might go on for too long. James Cameron's films are thrilling and gripping, emotional, soft as well as hard; but they may not say anything new, nor uncover uncharted territories. People think these minuses subtract more than they should. His sense of scale and spectacle never outstrip the story.
Click to expand...

Cameron vs Nolan
Fincher vs Aranofsky
Villanueve vs Mendes

IMO
 
Drain Bamage said:
I agree that Fight Club is more interesting but SPR is a nearly 3 hour authentic WW2 movie that to this day has action that hasnt been topped and Speilberg shot it in 59 days or something like that which I find very impressive. Theres a interview on Youtube between Speilberg and PTA and PTA is almost shocked when Speilberg tells him that fact and PTA states it would have taken him that long to shoot the beach scene alone.
Click to expand...

Really though I think your talking very different kinds of films Fincher and Anderson have only ever made quite small scale productions and that does naturally afford you more time to work, when your shooting giant action scenes you can't drag them out for too long as the costs would escalate.

With Fincher though I see less evidence that taking a lot time really resulted in as much inspiration, Norton in fight club is really good and maybe Downey Jnr in Zodiac but Anderson I think tends to get more inspired performances, its easy to see that taking a lot time to shoot with Phenoix or Day Lewis helped the end result.
 
moreorless87 said:
Really though I think your talking very different kinds of films Fincher and Anderson have only ever made quite small scale productions and that does naturally afford you more time to work, when your shooting giant action scenes you can't drag them out for too long as the costs would escalate.
Click to expand...

Exactly, Fincher takes 90 days to shoot 2 hour dramas. Spielberg shoots 3 hour war movies in 60 days. Spielberg is much more efficient. Thanks for proving my point.
 
Drain Bamage said:
Talkin' crazy homie
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GoodBadHBK
  • Poll Poll
Which Director Has The Best "Big 3"
Replies
7
Views
265
Adamant
Adamant

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,699
Messages
58,454,872
Members
176,041
Latest member
jaybuff

Share this page

Back
Top