You should watch boardwalk empire if you like peaky blinders Its also a classic mob era tv series I found that show more entertaining then this one Boardwalk empire gets very good at season 2 when al capone and richard harrow gets more screentime

Thank you! Really appreciate it!

I disagree. I understand that writers play a very important role, especially in the crafting of the story, so I agree that it's not his story, but the film is definitely his. Fincher has an extremely unique voice when interpreting stories and executing his vision, you put anyone else in his place and the film would look and feel completely different. Directors with a strong vision will often work with different departments (writers, DoP, lighting costume etc.) to create a film that tells the story they had in mind, and what you see on screen is an interpretation of the script made by the director. Sometimes it's not the story itself that's important, it's how the story is told.

@@justmovierants8762 let me put it in a away you may empathize. Sure, if you replace Fincher you will have a very different look and feel but if you replace the writer, you will have a completely different movie. That's why it's the writer's film, regardless of who made it. Think of your short film, what means more? The idea - the story - or the visuals?

@@v-22 the story is very important, don't get me wrong, but the director is not just in charge of the visuals, it's the interpretation of the story. And honestly, if you replace the director (assuming that the director has a very unique voice), it will also be a completely different movie. A really good example is the girl with the dragon tattoo. Having watched both the Swedish version of the film as well as Fincher version of the film, while the main storyline is the same, the interpretation of the characters and the way in which the story is told makes a huge difference on the audience experience. The two films are distinctly different. Another good example of this comparison is Infernal Affairs and The Departed. Scorcese literally bought the rights to remake infernal affairs and did an incredible job with the remake. While both films are fantastic, they are also very different, and you cannot say that the departed is not a Scorcese film. Anyone else in that director chair would've ended up with something completely different.

@@justmovierants8762 You are just making my point for me... Both versions of The Girl with The Dragoon Tattoo are great and different but, again, now, change the source material, the writing, and keep the same directors. How much more different would those films be? You are carrying on a bias that most people have because the film is what you see as the final product, so much so that someone who doesn't know how movies are made credit the actors instead of directors or writers but the writer is the auteur, any great director will tell you that, the writing comes first. The writing is by far and away the most important thing in any movie, not just important. The Departed - one of my favorite films by the way - is just an idea transplanted from Infernal Affairs, what makes The Departed so great is, again, the writing by William Monahan, how he was able to incoporate the culture, the racism, the language from Boston. Infernal Affairs was a plot inspiration for The Departed, Scorsese didn't go out there and shot the Google translation version of it, he shot a brilliant script created - no adapted - by a brilliant writer. You ah a smaahht kihd, I'm sure you will eventually come to agree as you move forward with your career. :)

@@v-22 I understand your point, and ofc if you change the story the film would be different. I think my point is that you can have a solid script, but without a good interpretation and execution of the script, the film can still be terrible. And yes, you might argue that you need a good script in the first place for the film to be great, and I don't disagree with you. The point I'm trying to make is that the role of the director and its influence on the final product should not be underestimated. The script is not a recipe or list of directions for a director to follow, in fact, I'm sure you know, not everything on the script always ends up in the final film. What we see in the end is very much up to the director. Touching on the point about people miscrediting actors for what they see, that could be because they are not aware that how an actor decide to act is directed by the director, the actor might have multiple interpretations but ultimately which interpretation we see is decided by the director. The same cannot be said about writers, the writers don't dictate how a director interprets a script, once they finish the script the film is out of their hands. (I hope my comparison here is clear) I do agree that writing comes first, every film needs a good foundation to work off of. But the writing is hardly the entirety of the movie. Going back to how this conversation started, you commented on the fact that films directed by David Fincher cannot be considered as his films, but can you consider them as the writer's films? I don't think so. (If you do, what about the writers who just adapted a story? Like in the case with the departed, I can argue with your logic that if he adapted another story instead of infernal affairs the whole script would be different no?) The concept of auteur did start off with writer directors, but I think it uniquely applies to Fincher because he has a very unique directorial style. When you watch any film made by Fincher, you can tell distinctly that it's made by him, that's what makes him an auteur.

that was the actor mostly. he wanted out cause he was remembered as john but now he screwed himself cause he's in nothing now