Then it's settled.

Christopher Nolan 100% destroys Fincher in all ways imaginable.

Fincher, my favorite director.

At the very least, David Fincher is one of the few continuously interesting digital-age auteurs.

At the very most, Christopher Nolan has yet to make a complete movie.

This is like comparing the star athlete with the smelly kid that eats his own boogers; neither of them are all that important, but at least one of them can get a date.

For TDK and such? You don't think movies can do well and be more?

I don't think special effects or the genres of most recent hits would for any reason necessarily limit a movie. They are things to work with or within.

Films can't be perfect by their nature. Even at best the truth in itself is always shown in a way that adds onto perfection things that are only a variety. Maybe the skeleton of a film could be perfect. I'd say certainly an element of a film could be perfect.

I don't see how a 'complete' movie though wouldn't depend on criteria that could be different for different people with only subjective differences on essential points.


I'll go with Fincher because of Fight Club.

Nolan, even though his films never reach the highs of Fincher's best, at least he never made a film as bad as Benjamin Button.

I don't believe in a world where we can't have both of these good filmmakers, so we needn't choose.

Anyone can call any movie bad or best if they want to.

What makes them so?

Heh, fans seem to demand it. heh

I don't know about anyone else, but tdk pales in comparison to Prestige and Memento. I think Fincher has made choices that have streched his skills a bit more than Nolan has. I think Fincher may care aboit the art of it all a bit more. But they are different people.

TDK owns those two lesser films.

GReat films, but a little wierd




Great films, his biggest film is a superhero movie.

It's pretty close but


So I guess my vote goes Nolan

After Benjamin Button, Nolan wins this round. TDK was a helluva lot stronger.

hehe, see, proves my point.

Anyone could say any film is great etc. The most accurate way though is to acknowledge that it's a combination of taste and things that might have some deeper or greater reason behind them. I mean, no movie might ever be perfect, and it's more or less impossible to have even a part of a film fit the term perfection in its every way of being viewed. However, a movie like Forrest Gump (oops wrong thread) or Fight Club, makes be think that the theoretical image of a perfect film could have even more to it than it does as a dream.

I mean things within a film can be or suggest something true or false, and they could be important or not, deep or not, beautiful or not, coherent or not, rational or not, but good or bad relates more to taste.

You've forgotten Fight Club?

Having seen Benjamin Button...

my vote goes to Nolan.

I'm more impressed by Fincher's directing, and not because he is (sometimes) more flashy. I think he is just more of a mad genius. I think Fincher at least theoretically would have been able to direct any of Nolan's movie just as well, but I don't think Nolan quite has what it takes to go the extra mile that Fincher can do at his best.

I have to agree about Benjamin Button, thought. The directing was excellent but man what a boring story, mainly because the protagonist was so insanely passive throughout the film.

And while Nolan has made some terrific films in his career, he really did capture the lightning on a bottle with TDK. I would love to see Fincher doing a big budget action event flick.

I wouldn't hold Alien against Fincher in any way, as he dislikes that movie more than anyone else in the world. I think it's quite good, personally.

Wow.

16 to 16

I have to think about it more

BOTH!

So, this year each of them released a new film - Inception and The Social Network.

Any changed opinions?

My vote goes to Fincher, David.

Social Network better, but only slightly

nolan = way better

Inception worse, but only slightly

fincher = way better

Do you still hate 'Zodiac', Magnus?