Talk:David Fincher

Fight Club, citation needed

Please find below the most damning review of Fight CLub that I have ever seen. It is uncited.

"Fight Club (1999) is a screen adaptation of Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 novel about an insomniac office worker who opens up a club devoted exclusively to bare knuckle fighting for men. Featuring Edward Norton, Helena Bonham Carter, and Seven collaborator Brad Pitt, the film was an early disappointment at the box-office and received mixed reviews. Fight Club was panned by several critics and alienated audiences leading to its box office failure in the United States.[citation needed]"

However, one only needs to go to IMDB to see that Fight Club is voted by users to be the Tenth Best Film of All Time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.110.239.227 (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Fincher is no longer involved with Heavy Metal remake

http://www.filmjunk.com/2011/07/22/robert-rodriguez-acquires-rights-to-heavy-metal-remake/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.244.106.164 (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we get a picture?

Or is there some reason why nobody has posted a picture of D. Fincher?

(Just wondering before I go ahead.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karllsky (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a picture would do. Especially now, when some facebook pages are based on wikipedia, and every wikipedia-based profile gets first picture from wikipedia page as its profile picture, and in this case it's a picture of Brad Pitt. Shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.85.117 (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are some images of Fincher distributed by creative commons license, for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ibwk/3217645247/ It's not great, but still better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.124.157 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish?

I couldn't find anything about it. Spikeballs 14:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is there so much gossip and childhood stuff in the article? Shouldn't it be neutral and objective information? What does it matter if he's jewish or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.203.188 (talk • contribs)

Personal information is important for artists. For example, it's nice to know that Steven Spielberg is jewish because it helps frame movies like Munich. I'm suprised this page doesn't mention Fincher's relationship with Donya Fiorentino. -Quasipalm 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to matter much with Fincher, or if it does, there's nothing publicly available (the requirement for wikipedia) to indicate that it does. Se7en certainly had religious overtones, but that was Andy Kevin Walker's script. The projects that Fincher's chosen since his break in Alien 3 (The Game, Panic Room, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network) don't really show any indication that he's greatly affecting in his directing or choice of project by whatever religion or spiritual beliefs he may or may not adhere to. Maybe Vanity Fair or Rolling Stone will do a couple thousand words on him at some point and we'll find out that his a devout Pastafarian, but as of now, I don't see how it matters. - Gwopy 20:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

David Fincher is not Jewish. Much of his ancestry is documented here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

removed picture

David Fincher might be the guy in the background of Image:Finch 2.jpg, but he's not the main subject. Compare photos of him at [1], [2], [3], and other results from a Google image search for "David Fincher." I think this photo was mislabeled by the original publisher. FreplySpang (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC) |Werthead]] 00:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

Didn't Fincher first direct the Smoking Fetus Commercial BEFORE helming the concert "documentary" The Beat of the Live Drum? Verify please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.189.135 (talk • contribs)

I corrected the chronology based on the book "Dark Eye - The Films of David Fincher" by James Swallow, an unofficial biography and look at his films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.218.189.135 (talk • contribs)

Copyright infringement?

Parts of this article was added last year by 213.42.2.11 (diff: [4]). It looks like at least some of this edit was taken from somewhere else, e.i. [5], [6], [7].[8]. Some of it has been removed for copyvio(diff [9]), but I suspect it still needs a cleanup? (e.g. "Fate finally came knocking on Fincher's door with Andrew Kevin Walker's screenplay for a grisly detective story titled Se7en"). Zarniwoot 21:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

As per guidelines, the trivia section needs to be removed and the content integrated into the article. One target I have in my sights is the whole "14 theme" which is unsourced, speculative, and OR. If there are no references for those assertions, and the director has not acknowledged any significance, it should all go. That would reduce the trivia section by at least half. Any thoughts? ---Cathal 14:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

integrity

who even added that? there's no info about it anywhere. i'm guessing the person who added it was the guy mentioned and it's not even true. i've never heard anything about this, theres no source noted, and theres no info online.

Zodiac first film to be shot entirely digitally?

The subsection for Zodiac claims that it was the first film to shot entirely digitally. I believe Attack of the Clones was the first. There's no source, so I'm going to remove that; revert if I'm wrong. Cerebellum (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the confusion lies with the wording. There have been a variety of films shot entirely digitally in the last few years. The distinction here being that Zodiac was (possibly) the first to be stored directly to a digital medium. Attack of the Clones and the slew of other films using Digital Camera's were all still tape based formats and before going to the computer based systems to be edited, they had to be further digitized from those tapes. Zodiac took advantage of Camera storage based on Hard Drives where the shots are immediately encoded to a computer based system directly from the camera. However the article made no distinction between the two causing some confusion.1808Productions (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First film shot with the "Thompson Viper" camera or some similarly named camera system. I know for a fact that 28 days later was shot on the Canon X1 (all digital) several years prior to Zodiac if being picked up by Fincher. There are always going to be "breakthrough" camera systems, lens technology, lighting and digital effects concepts that directors like Fincher use for the first time. Maybe it's good stuff to make note of. - Gwopy 20:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Tone editing

Edited article to remove stylized tone and style. Added a few reference links. Mtbraddick (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbraddick (talk • contribs) 03:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personnal life

Even though Fincher is not a pop star, shouldn't we add that he was married and has a child? 79.84.235.144 (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Hitchcock grew up in the playground of Jack The Ripper. Oliver Stone was shot in Vietnam, Roman Polanski lost his wife in tragic circumstances. Milestones in Mr Finchers life would be interesting, (but don't need to know his religion, or if he washes apples before he eats them etc.....Johnwrd (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercials

Why the commercials are not in chronological order since films and music videos are? --Mika1h (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Future projects

What's the deal with that section? It lists way too many, even ones that have already been finished by other directors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.49.118.60 (talk) 05:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is something that should probably be cleaned up across the board on Wikipedia. Directors get "attached" to certain projects so that studios can then attract starts, screenwriters, whoever is missing in the process, etc. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a "typical" structure to the process. - Gwopy 21:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Brad Pitt?

Can anyone explain how File:Brad Pitt Make it Right 2008.jpg is of any encyclopedic value and adds to the reader's understanding of the subject that cannot be conveyed by text in the article body? All he did was work with Fincher a few times. And who doesn't know what Pitt looks like?Shirtwaist (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Frequent Collaboration Table

Right now, it has Jeff Cronenweth and Atticus Ross and the like, as "actors". I think we need to add another table with frequent behind the scenes collaborators, indicate what they are, and also expand. For example, Ren Klyce, the Sound Designer, has worked with him on numerous films, including Fight Club and Social Network, and was nominated for Academy Awards for both. I am adding him to the "actor/cast" table, and hopefully someone who actually knows what they are doing can make a "crew" table. 206.211.150.206 (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, threw it together myself, but if someone could figure out what is up with the dividing borders, i would be most grateful. 206.211.150.206 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of misleading to list Darius Khondji as a frequent collaborator since he has shot only one film with Fincher (Seven), and was replaced by Conrad Hall on Panic Room within about a week of the start of shooting (see the supplements on the Panic Room DVD). As well, Jeff Cronenweth's father, Jordan Cronenweth, was the original cinematographer on Aliens 3 before he became too sick to continue, so there is a sort of family connection there that seems to me worth mentioning. In general the list shows a striking lack of horizontal connections, which you would expect in order to establish "frequent" collaboration. I think the list format is too clunky to capture the social networks that help make films come together for particular directors, and should probably be abandoned.Theonemacduff (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to direct you to the actor table, which has even less connections, disorganized, and I agree fully with the comment in the section below me. Also, I agree about Darius Khondji, and frankly anyone with less than 3 connections should be removed; however, the family connection is mentioned on the "aliens 3" film page, and not relevant to this table. But anyone can clearly see many relevant horizontal connections, and if you know anything about filmmaking, even a position like the casting director is a critical role to the director, and says a lot that he has worked with the same one for almost all of his films.

TL;DR, both need a little cleansing, but both are very relevant to David Fincher as a director, and I would fight tooth and nail to keep it. 206.211.153.11 (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC) (weird, I guess the creator of this table and myself go to the same school.)

Since most of the "frequent collaborations" in the actor section appear in a whopping TWO Fincher films, is the eyesore really worth having? At the very least, throw it on a new page like Tim Burton and David Lynch. 207.237.144.220 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Cast table

What should be a classification for a cast member that deserves to be listed here? for example, Angelina McCoy, only listed in two, is just a background dancer in both? What? Fincher probably never met her, on either set. Just seems random to me, and adds clutter. Atleast prominently featured? (atleast extra with close-up/speaking role, etc.) 206.211.150.206 (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Netflix TV Show

Should a mention of his possible involvement in a new series called House of Cards be mentioned. It has been reported on numerous websites that he and Kevin Spacey will more than likely be involved with an original television series on Netflix. Gothamghost (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Fincher and Alien 3

I seem to recall that Fincher viewed his whole experience with Alien 3 as so disastrous that he not only refused to participate in the Alien Quadrilogy DVD release (there is no introductory statement by him and no commentary audio track, in contrast to the three other directors) but omits, or at least used to omit, the film entirely from lists describing his work (for example, in the DVD "extras" sections of some of his other movies). That could be added to the Alien 3 section of the article, if anybody were to find a source. FungusFromYuggoth (talk) 15:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please keep out the gratuitous praise

The gratuitous praise ('He is widely considered one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation") does not belong in this kind of article. Please keep it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.119 (talk • contribs)

I agree that this hyperbole was not appropriate, and your removal was correct. However, you are misrepresenting the case of this further removal made by you, which is not that Fincher himself is considered great but that his films are highly rated by Rolling Stone and the BBC. I think these important third party assessments should be returned to the article. Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for a week. Please discuss the issue here and try to find a consensus on whether to include or exclude the information. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede that the BBC "Greatest Films of the 21st Century" list may be appropriate, since it has been referenced in other articles. However, vague mentions of how certain films are considered 'the greatest' of a specific decade aren't common in the opening paragraphs of articles about directors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.119 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

We need to address this hagiographic WP:PEACOCKing, which appeared to begin when an anon IP made this edit on March 29, and it has gone in and out since — meaning there is no consensus on it to stay. Moreover, the simple fact that it is clearly the same editor sock-puppeteering with multiple anon IPs means this needs to stay out, since we do not reward sock-puppeteering. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique

In the “Fight Club” section of the article, a citation is needed about how it is considered to be one of the best films of the 1990’s and Fincher’s career. This is a biased statement, you could have just said that, “Fight Club is often ranked as one of the best films of the 1990’s and Fincher’s career” and then provided some sort of source ranking his movies. A citation is also needed at the end of “The Game” paragraph, I have no idea where this information is coming from. Your "Alien 3" section should be more developed. There is a lot more to that story that shaped Fincher as a filmmaker. This experience is why he has such a distaste for studio films and why his films are so unique. There are plenty of articles on this topic and I feel like you could have used them to your advantage. A lot of the citations were proper and they made sense. I checked out a bunch of the references and they seemed reliable and unbiased (outside of Fincher’s own bias in interviews). However, there is one very biased source. When talking about Fincher’s directing style, I noticed that you used a Youtube video as the citation. This video used sources, but I would have looked for those interviews directly instead of relying on somebodies biased video. Videos are great tools for learning but I found these interviews myself, and there is a lot more information then what was in the Youtube video. You could developed this section a lot more if you used more direct quotes from the director himself. Other then that, the information is up to date and it is showing his latest work. Some questions I have for you, are where did you locate your sources? Also, why didn’t you talk about his personal background more? This area also seemed a bit lacking in my opinion.Samuelrmartin (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Fincher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jburlinson (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll be glad to review this article. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long for a response to your nomination. Comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for all your work!--Jburlinson (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had trouble finding the time to get started. I'll need another few days. --Jburlinson (talk) 08:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

OK. Here's my initial review. I've made several minor changes to wording and grammar in the article. If any of these are objectionable to any editor, please let me know. Otherwise, I think the article is very close to GA -- it's really well done and very interesting.

Hi Jburlinson, thank you for your review and contributions. Much appreciated! I've added my comments below. I've added citations where needed and/or distributed them about (eg. for some of the quotes, they often came from the same source, but I just didn't over-cite).

Thanks for addressing all the points listed above. And thanks to you and everyone else who has contributed to this article. It contains some interesting material and is an asset to the film project on WP.--Jburlinson (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Minor changes have been made for spelling, typos, punctuation & wording. Spot checking reveals no problems with copyright violations.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are a number of statements that have either no in-line citations or faulty ones. Here are some I have found so far: "Starting in 1984, Fincher began to focus on music videos. He directed videos for various artists including singer-songwriters Rick Springfield, Martha Davis, Paula Abdul, rock band The Outfield, and R&B singer Jermaine Stewart." -- needs cite Done Done "Fincher's 1986 music video for "We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off", was the biggest commercial success for Stewart." -- source does not menton Stewart. I couldn't find a source. Stewart is a bit obscure, so I've added a more famous example instead, George Michael. Done "During production, Fincher was hampered by disagreements with the film studio over the budget and screenplay." -- needs cite Slightly reworded and added. Done "Fincher directed the 2010 film The Social Network, a biographical drama about Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg and his legal battles. The screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin, who adapted it from the book The Accidental Billionaires. It stars Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg, with a supporting cast of Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Armie Hammer and Max Minghella. Principal photography started in October 2009 in Massachusetts and the film was released one year afterwards to wide acclaim." -- needs citation. The two sources cited are not relevant to the content. Slightly reworded and added. Done " Fincher worked closely with screenwriter Steven Zaillian to analyze the novel and develop the film adaptation." -- needs cite "Known for his meticulous eye for detail and perfectionist qualities, Fincher performs thorough research when casting actors to ensure their suitability for the part. "He's really good at finding the one detail that was missed. He knows more than anybody", said colleague Max Daly. "He's just scary smart, sort of smarter than everyone else in the room", said producer Laura Ziskin." -- each quotation needs an inline citation. "He does not normally use hand-held cameras during filming, instead preferring cameras on a tripod. Fincher said, "Handheld has a powerful psychological stranglehold. It means something specific and I don’t want to cloud what’s going on with too much meaning." -- needs cite(s) All above, done. Done "The writer, Piers McCarthy, argues "that the protagonists of these films are not totally in control of their actions but are subject to darker, inner impulses", as quoted from a book by Frank Krutnik." -- I think there's some confusion with this citation. The quotation comes from Krutnik, and is quoted in an article by McCarthy. It would like be better to cite Krutnik directly. The quote comes from Krutnik, but he's not talking about Fincher's films. McCarthy is just using his quote to describe the films. I've now reworded it.. does it look better now? Otherwise we can think of something else! Thanks, Just Lizzy(talk) 18:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Done .
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA