He's the most demanding director in the history of Hollywood

[@herlocksholmes9146]

Kubrick left the chat

[@Dr_Kubrick]

Hey

[@Mal_Freeman0451]

Saving Kubrick for the 'When the director makes the actors need therapy' video.

[@davidbjacobs3598]

Kubrick asked for another take of the video.

[@DTDrac0_]

​@@Mal_Freeman0451lies, lies and... more lies.

[@hctr9864]

​@@DTDrac0_ fr!

[@noodle123ify]

Definitely a testament to Fincher that the caliber of actors here are singing his praises despite how hard the process is

[@jotun.616]

@@noodle123ify yes. Im having some interesting back, and forth about it. Ppl wanting to push it as a binary. Choose between more or less takes being better, and im in the middle, trying to be nuanced lol! Saying obviously you shouldnt do the eastwood one take on everything, but whether or not youre doing too many entirely depends on the director. Fincher is involved, and collaborative with the actors. Kubrick was a prick, who often didnt give any direction more than "do it again". Point being, the actors loving fincher is why its ok for him to do 1k takes, and them universally praising him is what changed my mind from being against crazy amounts of takes. Cos the only other reference point i have is kuprick, and no actor has ever said anything nice about his process. Only that the end result is good.

[@noodle123ify]

@@jotun.616 unless we're directing or acting in film/TV projects with a budget, I'm not sure we get to have an opinion on it. we haven't been there nor experienced it, nor understand what performances didn't make the final cut and why

[@andyhall7032]

hmm....seemed to me the majority made it _very clear_ they considered the sheer number of takes he would do to be excessive.

[@noodle123ify]

@@andyhall7032 the majority were highly complimentary despite feeling pushed to go further. the majority appeared to have faith and trust in his process

[@TheRulerRoderickSutton]

Most said what they said during a promotional tour-they could NEVER say what they really wanted to say even if they wanted to. Reputation is everything in that world.

[@whitenoisejack]

I've worked in the film business for 25 years as a director. I certainly can't argue that David Fincher has made many great films. But many other directors have made brilliant films without doing 20+ takes on every shot. I think it reflects more Fincher's personality and perhaps a certain OCDness he has about every fine detail than it reflects on the need for filmmakers to keep shooting over and over to do great work. Same thing with Kubrick. They're both master filmmakers, but there are many other masters who don't shoot like they do and still make great films. The divorce rate is insane in the film business. And a lot of it is because people are on set for 12-16 hours a day month in and month out on films or tv shows where the days are insanely long like this. I've always liked Sidney Lumet's approach. He treated film production like a 9 to 5 job. His film's were simpler than Fincher's, but he made great movies with great performances. And he was a five-time Oscar nominee. It can be done.

[@zhc2200]

Too much casual sex on set?

[@martynstembridge7714]

Agree ... Fincher is also running the risk of constantly shooting actors who are producing takes while feeling drained and frustrated. Yeah, he might sometimes get that exact PERFECT take on the 80th try, but I can't imagine doing the same thing 40 times over and not becoming robotic and annoyed by that point.

[@therealdeal2247]

100%

[@mk-ultramags1107]

None are as visually stunning. Every single Kubrick frame is playing its part in telling the story. Anyone who has seen Kubricks editing methods understands why he did what he did. 100 takes gives you 100 different ways of doing the scene. I won't say it's an easy job but I'll never feel bad about actors getting paid good money while playing make believe

[@whitenoisejack]

​@@mk-ultramags1107 I think I'd have to respectfully disagree. I can think of many filmmakers who have done visually stunning work that I'd put right up against Kubrick's work, i.e. Malick, Tarkovsky, Wong Kar-Wai, del Toro, PTA, Eggers, Noe, Wes Anderson, Innaritu, Spielberg, George Miller, Villenueve, Cameron, etc. And then some DPs who always seem to shine, like Lubezki, Toll, Deakins, Storaro, Elswit, Khondji, Richardson. And most of those are more recent selections. You start going back into film history and scanning other countries and there are many more. Sadly, I've left many worthy names out. You mentioned visuals, but I'd say that making a movie visually stunning is only part of the battle of making a great film. I recently saw Dune, for example, and while it was visually stunning, I felt rather unattached to the characters and their plights. The actors played one dark note, the entire film, and the story was confusing on many levels. Amazing production design, exquisite lighting, talented actors...etc. But something in the soul of the thing felt missing, to me. One man's opinion. I think each director is great at different things. When I think of Kubrick, I see a master of tone and composition. He's splendid at creating and sustaining moods. And to your point about editing, often his pacing was great. But I would disagree with you that his editing always made his films better. Sometimes it feels self-indulgent and slows his films down tremendously, beyond what is necessary. And I certainly don't think he's a great actor's director. He got interesting performances by beating them out of people and wearing them down. But I'm not sure he really understood the actors' language. Many actors disliked him. Obviously, he's considered a master filmmaker for many reasons. But you have to remember that many people dislike his films for the reasons you love them. So yes, the 100 take thing worked for him. And that was his style. And Fincher loves it. But again, this thought that you need 100 different ways to a scene is just not accurate. The audience sees only one of those ways. And it's subjective. What the director loves, many not even be the best take. And the act of making something visually stunning isn't usually enhanced the number of takes you shoot. Before you even turn the camera on, the production design, costumes, and lighting are set. All that changes, once you roll, are the performances and the blocking. And those are just two parts of a multi-faceted image. Kubrick's methods work for him. He's made some classic films. But those methods don't negate all the other ways of making films.

[@whitefoxfilms]

I think this is a misunderstanding of Kubricks incessant takes. He spent hours upon hours, sometimes at the annoyance of the crew, to sit and talk with the actors about character and performance. Fincher goes into the shooting knowing what he wants to the n'th degree, whereas Kubrick didn't have shotlists and often was rewriting the script on set. Kubrick did a hundred takes because he wasn't sure what he wanted and had to explore until he saw it. Fincher knows what he wants and is going to shoot until he gets it.

[@jgallagher1359]

You nailed it. And touched on the basic misunderstanding the person who made the video has. All of Fincher's stuff lacks a human element. At some point you have to analyze outcome and quality...

[@markovchainy]

Great insight

[@alexcoleman2735]

You’re missing an important insight though: Kubrick was also writer for the film, not just a director. Fincher is adding the implicit bits to the script in the same way Nolan does with minimal scripts. I wouldn’t assume he’s fully realized his vision prior to the first take when he realizes what he doesn’t want

[@jgallagher1359]

@@alexcoleman2735 the difference is Nolan and Fincher don't really understand dialogue or character. It's why their work is ultimately limited and sterile. They're kind of like commercial directors.

[@alexcoleman2735]

@@jgallagher1359 sterile might be a bit harsh but I don’t deny they lose some of the fluidity/humanity by being unbudging

[@GandalfTheGravy1]

Interesting fact remains that his best movies were the early ones where he couldn't do so many takes.

[@MsTriangle]

this!

[@klartext2225]

says who??

[@azryzuraidy6311]

social network and zodiac disagree with you bro (though i dont agree with fincher making 100 takes to film a scene)

[@GandalfTheGravy1]

@@azryzuraidy6311 50 years from now all that will be re-watched is Se7en and Fight Club

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

I prefer Ridley Scott's opinion on film takes. Sure, not everyone has to do things this way, but it seems like a TERRIBLE waste of resources, efforts, hours, energy, budgets, etc. to attempt 30-60 takes for things you COULD have achieved in 3-6 if everyone had simply come prepared. To me, that's the sign of a professional: preparation extraordinaire.

[@ranchu85]

Spielberg once said we can waste another 10 takes to get you to be 10% better or I can go do something else that with that time that can improve the film much more as a whole

[@BrennanMartin]

But every other Ridley Scott film is legitimately terrible. While having some excellent movies in his library, it's a coin toss as to whether it's going to be good or not. Fire every gladiator there's a Robin Hood, for every blade runner a house of Gucci. Fincher is exacting, and I think that's why his filmography had a much higher bar.

[@TylerDurden-td2yg]

@@BrennanMartin While it´s true that Ridley Scott has got anything from rubbish to masterpiece in his sleeve, i personally think Fincher is in decline for the last 10 years now. His last great movie was Gone Girl.

[@Orcawhale1]

@@TylerDurden-td2yg Mindhunter was amazing though, like truly.

[@DarkSentinel52]

@@TylerDurden-td2yg im watching mindhunter right now and its really good

[@alexcherrypicks]

I worked on Benjamin Button & The Social Network. Despite his reputation he was really easy to work with and we had very few revisions on our shots. His notes were specific and extremely clear. But I would also argue, that like Hitchcock, the best performance he ever got out of an actor was portraying a cold blooded psychopath and that every other actor he's worked with has done better performances in other films. I don't think he's great with actors at all, but he speaks a certain cinephile language.

[@MsTriangle]

yeah that's probably why his films about regular people are not as critically appealing. I don't see anything sincere about his characters, especially when they are shot in such a stylized version.

[@alexcherrypicks]

@@MsTriangle A good director is probably the least sincere person on the project, and a good writer is the most sincere.

[@handcoversbruise1410]

Fun fact: They've done 99 takes for the first scene of the social network, for some reason, Fincher just didn't want to make it a hundred. lol.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

I can SORTA see why Fincher demanded so many takes for The Social Network. It's a talking head movie. There is SO little action in the film. The scene where Andrew Garfield smashes a laptop is basically the most action-packed the movie ever gets. That's why they used Garfield's angry walk in the trailer. There's literally nothing else to look at except for people sitting around talking or people typing on keyboards because they work at Facebook. There are some good performances in the movie but I can see why the deposition scene would require a lot of takes. There are like eight or nine actors in that one room and you need them all to deliver on the same take. That seems time consuming. But filming a bunch of shitless dudes grappling with each other in a poorly lit basement? Doesn't seem like it would require over 80 takes. Brad Pitt looks as good shirtless and bloody on take five than he does on take fifty.

[@crashgrove5514]

Let's get this to 99 likes, and not one more than that

[@howdareyou41]

@@betterdaysareatoenailaway he wanted to strip out all earnestness. Fincher HAAAAATES actors being earnest.

[@aleksisuuronen5969]

There is just so many reasons he does it 😅 Like Ruffalo said that sometimes it's just so background extras move just in right time thru the camera so it looks.. kinda composed you know. Say someone stops a sentence and just then a background dude goes off frame and so on.

[@orcapodmedia]

A praise about how this particular video was created: keeping your voice disembodied is a great choice. It adds more power to your argument.

[@HowTo128]

Very well-researched and edited video! One of the best video essays I've seen in a while

In an interview for the "Side by Side" documentary (it´s about film x digital), Fincher says that Robert Downey Jr. would piss inside glass jars and leave them on the set, as a protest for never having time to relax and go to his trailer.

[@MrStimpson38]

Pausing the video to say, I just subbed to you a couple videos ago. I've loved movies for a long time now, but you've helped me see that they're more than a love, they're a full blown hobby. Thank you for that.

[@modophone]

I'd love to have an editor mark a scene with which take finally used for each shot; if the 101st take was actually the golden take, or in the edit bay they found out 34 was perfectly fine.

[@playingvideojames]

It's interesting to me because even though these actors complain about the number of takes, you also hear from so many other actors looking back at past performances how they see their mistakes or wish they had done it better or differently or how it even makes them cringe, and so Fincher gives them the opportunity to not have any of those regrets.

[@carl_anderson9315]

Agreed. Most of those actors are paid millions, and many of them are aware of their privilege that it’s to have their job. So a lot of them actually enjoy to feel that pressure, the feel that they’re hard working professionals and their job is really demanding of their talent, and that they earn that privilege.

[@Bruceybaby2009]

Lol bit of a difference between 2-3 takes and 99 takes….

[@TylerDurden-td2yg]

I think Gary Oldman is experienced enough to know though that 100 takes might be enough and it´s maybe more Fincher´s ego than anything else to keep on going and test everybody´s patience

[@im_lost_123]

Dude, your channel is literally gold. 💕

[@ChrisBeaumontPhoto]

Great video. You really tell the story well, using all those voices. I loved it.

[@MsTriangle]

His best films were done when he wasn't doing over hundred takes. Something to ponder about...

[@dreigivetimpoolmassivewedg7646]

The greatest film of the 21st century imo, Zodiac, is the most famous for wild amounts of takes....

[@MsTriangle]

@@dreigivetimpoolmassivewedg7646 Zodiac didn't have as many as his later digital films.

[@dreigivetimpoolmassivewedg7646]

@@MsTriangle I dunno, the only two specific films that I've heard stories about as far as takes are Zodiac and The Social Network; his two absolute masterpieces imo.

[@PASTRAMIKick]

Yeah both Fincher and Kubrick do (did) a lot of takes, but Fincher does his takes on digital and Kubrick did it on a fortune of celluloid

[@ThePoorBoy]

When film directors get like this, they should go direct a play. Reason? When the play is being performed, they have almost no control and must trust the cast and crew to do their own jobs. Fincher's best films are his earlier films -- before he was able to choke the life out of every aspect of them. I feel the same way about Wes Anderson. Both of them should direct a play.

[@alexanderbucsis3825]

It always felt to me like Fincher read that Kubrick would do endless takes and then figured that’s what he should do as well, in order to be taken seriously as a “great director.” But while Fincher has made some good-to-great movies, he’s a technician. Kubrick has the artistry to back his technical process. It just feels so indulgent and self-aware with Fincher. I could never truly get past that feeling. The Killer seems like a perfect example: technically brilliant but with a certain soullessness.

[@klartext2225]

NOW I would love to see something on the opposite approach: just one or two takes! Directors like Clint Eastwood are famous for this method.

[@daprimedabg4539]

Sergio Leone took the most takes even more than Kubrick, maybe that's why clint knows how to get the same effect with less takes

[@Carboxylated]

to be fair, I work on film sets and boom shadow is a real issue. As a gaffer I always try to give the boom guy a heads up as to what direction my lights beam angle is and the best spot for them to stand with their boom. They always give me a hard time like im trying to tell them how to do their job, like no, im just being polite and kindly helping you to succeed. Then the shot goes up and then you hear the director yelling "BOOM! BOOM SHADOW IS IN THE SHOT!" Once the shot is done I always find my way back to the boom guy and tell him "Told ya so bro, next time listen and you'll go a long way." This has happened more times than I can count on my fingers. Boom guys have an ego for sure. Boom guys are the problem...not Fincher 🤣

[@JackKirbyFan]

You just started and I'm already hooked. Well done work!

[@jokerfleckcast3196]

Fincher's best work is "cradle of love" by Billy idol.

[@MsTriangle]

love that video! His best IMO

[@derp-x3j]

wait till you read about his editing demands. for example he'll have them (Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall often) edit words from one take into the visuals of another, so the editor is putting together pieces of sound and video from these hundreds of takes.

[@Luckeydogs]

I enjoyed this! Would have watched it if it were three times as long.

[@thephilosophercactus]

You are my new favourite person on KZbin.

[@cinedome1]

Thank you, that's amazing to hear.

[@ruskibruski]

@@cinedome1100k soon keep it up

[@TylerDurden-td2yg]

Yeah first video on this channel and i think i am going to stay

[@acapedit]

All great and everything. But a fair criticism of his recent work is a sense that perfection is lifeless. Every single frame of the image's life has been engineered, fiddled, and labored out. This has the same result on the viewer, and there must be balance. This is the paradox when directors like Fincher exert such control, and have no pushback from their creative departments. He just went and did an 8K restoration of Se7en, watch that film's perfectly imperfect grain elusion, camera bumps and sense of place be erased for a more exacting, "labored over" result. I'll take the old version anyday.

[@ianlarsen]

Zodiac was when I started to drift away from Fincher, so the account in the video here would make me square up with what you say, indeed. I've always been fascinated with how much people love Zodiac, and am curious to revisit it, but it did strike me as awfully clinical and sterile. In addition to all the things said here, I was amazed when I saw someone drawing attention to the unbelievably meticulous synchronising of the camera movement with the actors' movements in Fincher's films. It's such an astonishing attention to detail that I can believe that that is a major factor in him demanding so many takes. And again, very impressive technically, but very sterile.

[@thunderb4stard80]

Unpopular opinion alert: I feel that lifelessness in all of his movies (apart from the social network), he is so sterile and cold as a director that I can't really connect with any of his work

[@samik83]

Well said

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

I like Gone Girl well enough, but Fight Club and Se7en are fucking amazing. I DO really like Zodiac though.

[@MsTriangle]

@@ianlarsen Zodiac is great for very different reasons. I believe collectively it's his best-acted movie ever.

[@rustneversleeps85]

Honestly, "Seven" and "Fight Club" (when he hadn't yet worked up the nerve to do 100 takes) had as good performances as any of his later works, if not in fact better. So whatever philosophy or justification you apply to it, it's as much BS as method acting. The result is literally the same. And I feel the same applies to Kubrick: it did not bring out anything particular in the actors, if anything they felt more rigid. Just look at the interactions in "Full Metal Jacket". After the intentionally mechanical opening, the 2nd half has some of the most absurd acting I've seen in a non-amateur film.

[@edwardzuniga7598]

It’s truly great to see someone else share this sentiment.

[@samik83]

Yeah, I agree. Just feels like he does it because he can, sort of an ego thing. If your not getting it by the 10th take, then either the actor doesn't know what you want, or you don't know how to direct. Would be interesting to see one of those 100 take scenes how different they really were or was it just repeat after repeat where something different / special was expected to happen for some reason.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

I agree with you on Full Metal Jacket. Outside of the famous "i AM in a world of shit" scene, I don't think the acting is very good.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

@@samik83 Kubrick did SO MANY takes on Eyes Wide Shut, I seriously doubt he was using the best ones. When you do over 60 takes, is there REALLY a huge difference between take 52 and take 53? Tom Cruise's best acting is in Magnolia, and he did the deathbed scene in ONE take. It's the greatest thing Cruise has ever done, dramatically.

[@phillystevesteak6982]

Method acting is bs? How? It's what works for some best. Daniel day Lewis is not considered good in your eyes?

[@fulld-scription]

Fun fact: In Fight Club when The Narrator and the henchmen leave the social event, Meatloaf's pants fall down and you can see the fatsuit. Fincher said that it was the only good take of them all exiting so he kept it in.

[@polyestermammoth740]

So glad that I found this channel.

[@-xirx-]

Where did this channel come from?! Excellent though, can't wait for more. Thank you😊

[@Zenmaster_0-0_]

You have 10k subs is criminal. You're a talented created,. You'll be at a million+ in no time, I have no doubt.

[@cinedome1]

Thanks a lot! I don't know about 1 million, but I'd be delighted to hit 100k in the next year or so. Appreciate your comment man.

[@DaveUnreally]

It's about those happy accidents. Those things that infuse real life and authenticity into the performances.

[@christophervanasse9911]

Fincher and Cronenberg are my two favorites probably. I just enjoy literally everything they’ve done. Fincher is insane but an absolute master of his craft.

[@christophervanasse9911]

Maybe not alien 3 lol

[@macksequeira4233]

Alien 3 is good, not better than 1 & 2 though​@@christophervanasse9911

[@likehell5803]

@@christophervanasse9911 to be fair, He disowned that project outright due to studio interference. It is a terrible movie for sure. The only cool thing is Ripley's sacrifice a the end... which they undo in the next movie haha.

[@AlBrownComedy]

When corporate America does this, we call it abuse. When an auteur does it, it’s art 🙄 I say this as a massive Finch fan, but damn. No I’m sorry that’s just OCD on steroids. If Eastwood can get it in one take, you can get it in less than 20 FFS.

[@TheKingWhoWins]

Eastwood hasn't touched FInch

[@AlBrownComedy]

Kubrick was reported as saying “JFC just call scene already.”

[@tdawg719]

The amount of takes has more to do with being a control freak than anything. I get it’s his art form and he wants for it to be what he wants. But he is working with the best actors in the world. There’s probably dozens of takes before the one he picks that would serve the movie just the same. More doesn’t equal better by default. And I think he is also over estimating the audience. There’s a scene in The Abyss where the camera man wipes the lens during the final take that made it into the film. No one even noticed it.

[@tessamoonproductions8743]

Would love to see someone take the FIRST FIVE takes of all the scenes Fincher shot and recut one of his movies. I'll BET A LOT the result would be better than the version where he abused his actors.

[@ZooDinghy]

That explains why I don't like the newer fincher films. There is something off. They feel so unnatural.

[@TylerDurden-td2yg]

I was bored out of my mind with his last two movies. The first 15 minutes of The Killer were okay but i don´t plan to rewatch them ever. Very, very dissapointed.

[@andrewslater2940]

It's like he's taken the soul out of it

[@ThaKilla52]

You need to make more videos!

[@OGGMagnus]

Another great video!

[@deniss.6205]

I think the title goes to Kubrick...Fincher being the technician he is, took advantage of the Digital video wave to shoot endlessly.

[@littlethuggie]

Much prefer those that need just a few takes. Like Eastwood has said, it's usually not going to matter

[@Owenwithee]

"A weird plastic hymen?" Did I hear that right? As oddly amazing as it is bizarre.

[@damienscott919]

I did not know of Fincher's affinity for takes. Love his films even more now. Thank you for the great video.

[@MediaBuster]

Why would you love his films more because you found out he did ridiculous amount of takes?

[@damienscott919]

@@MediaBuster His obsession comes through in the finished product. Did you watch this video?

[@samik83]

@@damienscott919 Do you think Se7en or Fight club would have been more amazing with 10x more takes. Like are some of the scenes leaking because back then he did less takes? Honestly if you're not getting it by the 10th take, then either the actor doesn't know what you want, or you don't know how to direct.

[@damienscott919]

@@samik83 Fincher talking about the cost of sets, crew and wanting the actor to perform like they are normally in the particular space with their movements for the shot and repetition can catch wonderful moments. You're right, he doesn't know how to direct. I love Se7en and Fight Club and asking me what I think they could have been if Fincher did this then is silly. Nothing is leaking or lacking. He's just able to work in a way that suits him now. I get it. You guys don't like all the takes. I am with Jared Harris on this one. I'd rather be on set instead of sitting in the trailer.

[@samik83]

@@damienscott919 I'm just thinking that if a director has a clear vision and can communicate that vision + theres a capable actor, then it should take that many takes. Just my 2 cents

[@blkcat-art]

He is one of my favorite directors. I just rewatched Zodiac for the fourth time and I enjoyed it as much as all the other times. I do wish we had another season of Mindhunter instead of Mank though; that movie was pretty boring, in my opinion.

[@thugtrippin]

Great video

[@anthonysanlucas6437]

I love the fact that he actually makes the actors earn their pay.

[@neondharma]

I wouldn't say what he is known for is getting great performances out of actors. His early films in which he had fewer takes had more notable performances and are more memorable overall. He is more known for how he crafts a plot and executes well thought out shots. The above average number of takes doesn't seem to be a sign of a master but someone who is compulsive and unsure of themselves and how to translate their ideas to actors.

[@J4sse]

I feel bad for the editor 😅.

[@TheLastCommander8]

David Fincher is HIM

[@gregspauldini3139]

There's definitely not one way to do it. For me it would make more sense though to do less takes, cause I just think it would be more organic that way. I don't quite get him saying let's start after seven takes. Seems kind of like a waste of everyone's time. I mean 100 takes is ridiculous. Love his films though. One of my favorite directors.

[@jawadkhelil5742]

"You know that thing ain't coming off without that dome's gonna come off with it" "I think what's Gambit trying to say here is that is going to be hard to take Juggernaut's helmet" dialogue between two fictional characters from the movie "Deadpool and Wolverine"(2024) Peace Next

[@emoney6692]

Ermmm, did you post this comment under the wrong video?😂

[@kdcndw1]

How many actors repeat with Fincher? That aspect reflects his talent. I think David Cronenberg and Peter Weir get great performances with less takes.

[@Cinegavo]

boom op must be jacked

[@shinigamiauthor]

It's mental the amount of takes Fincher and Kubrick would ask for.... but when their work was so consistently above the bar... it seems to work

[@matthewsaul3533]

I'm certainly appreciative of this video because it highlights a director I hadn't been noticing. But comparisons often do a disservice to both parties which are being compared. Sure, make snide remarks about Kubrick not being an actor's director.. but Kubrick is legendary for good reason. And Fincher's work isn't elevated by dismissing Kubrick's approach.

[@griffinh21]

Fincher also shot his first few movies on film which is expensive compared to digital, so there were probably financial constraints keeping him from shooting more

[@jennifersun2638]

David Fincher is a genius.

[@OndrejSc]

"Magical Mistake"

[@MonsterPig007]

You don't need that many takes. Either you have it or you don't, case in point, Mank. did anyone see that movie? At the end of the day it's about entertaining the audience but Fincher tends to make movies for himself.

[@TheKingWhoWins]

Please the masses, who are most likely fkn idiots

[@bek6815]

Not related to the video but where are his other videos?

[@HarisankarS-x5t]

In simple terms he is a perfectionist

[@jimk5447]

David fincher is the goat

[@deardaughter]

If he shot on 70mm film, he’d measure twice before cutting once.

[@CraigBickerstaff]

I don't think he'd approach it any differently, I recall him saying in one of the BHS featurettes on Fight Club that he always made sure they had the time and budget for doing a lot of takes. If he shot 70mm he'd still shoot a lot of takes.

[@deardaughter]

@@CraigBickerstaff I swear I will fight club you right now Bickerstaff! xo

[@Stuntman175]

@@CraigBickerstaff IMAX costs around 2000 bucks a minute to film, he'd have to make a short film and even that short film would enter the "Most Expensive Movies Ever" list 😂

[@blue7lvn245]

I'm with Clint Eastwood lol

[@blue7lvn245]

It's not confidence it's power.... Good movies but kubrick ego push

[@puddy107]

Eh, Eastwoods philosophy bothers me. Going to the complete opposite of the spectrum isn’t necessarily the answer either. It sounds great until there’s a dreadful take that makes its way into the film. Bad takes happen, there needs to be redundancies to avoid laughable scenes. Think of the baby in American Sniper. Give another skilled director that scene (and more takes) and few would have realized the baby was not real.

[@BonzoKilbourn]

@@puddy107 Should have had a real baby or no baby.

[@puddy107]

@@BonzoKilbourn I agree. However it absolutely could have worked with more takes, angles, and a little editing. Is dedicating time for that better than opting for your solution? Not sure, but clearly neither of these thoughts crossed Eastwood’s mind.

[@davekennedy6315]

SUPERB channel, I look forward to seeing more vids (preferably many, MANY more please? Haha!)

[@K.Dwizzle]

I prefer the spontaneous.

[@xtraflo]

Scorsese is in that group too!

[@earlybird3668]

Kubrick is. Fincher is in ball park, but Kubrick for the win.

[@AlexanderPK]

inspiring

[@itsmekiruha]

I guess it was working out for him when the movies were actually good, when he made classic after classic. I feel like now practically no one wants to work with him anymore because nobody sees any major benefits. Mank and killer are decent but not great, not even close, and in no world is it fair to ask Gary Oldman to do 100+ takes in a movie so average It is known that very few actors repeatedly work with him (because of the “perfectionism”), and those actors have producer friends, and people talk… it’s sad but no wonder why he struggles to find funding for his work lately Still waiting for mindhunter season 3 though 😢😢😢

[@attackofthecopyrightbots]

Stanley kubrick, nice version

[@homecinemademo]

I have demons you cant even imaging. - David Fincher

[@darktower74]

Here is how I feel about talent or prodigies. We tolerate a great deal more from a super-talent (not necessarily synonymous with superstar) or prodigy provided they keep producing what we want. Think of a genius mathematician. University admin or whoever looks the other way when they are drunk or haven't showered in a week or mouth off to random passersby PROVIDED they are bringing value. A prodigal musician is tolerated so long as he doesn't fuck up. A teenager gets a lot of passes if he's got straight A's and doesn't harm everyone around him. If FIncher starts making dogshit films (unlikely), then people will tolerate arduous or questionable overtime and exertion. If he starts making shitty films, his credit begins to drop off precipitously. We can't see all the strings being pulled behind the scenes and maybe it's not as cut and dry as that, but he's got a very respectable list of films with a score over 8 on IMDB, I've seen almost all of them and concur with the general opinion he is a man to watch, his films, if anything, are underrated. Give him a truly incredible script and he will make history.

[@frikkied2638]

Polar opposite to Werner Herzog.

[@snoookie456]

It's funny that this is the one thing Kubrick and Fincher have in common while I hate Kubrick and absolutely love Fincher. Kubrick's famous for being a "perfectionist", while Fincher is just so fucking good. And as the saying goes, perfect is the enemy of good.

[@SSM654]

As someone who works in film in the camera department if we are shooting THAT MANY takes....the director doesn't know what they are doing. They are not confident, ready, etc enough to know WHAT you need to do in order to get your actors there. If I asked for 43 times on a shot to focus again because I buzzed it I'd be fired the next day. Yes acting is another medium though he's treating it so technically so why not figurer it out with your actors instead of wasting film and time. This isn't cute or amazing or something to aspire as a director, it just shows lack of foresight. Unless it's a technical stun scene a shot shouldn't be over 30 and so on. I feel like people who praise this kind of work method have never once step foot on a real set or have any idea of the work or process of film making. Digital has changed SOOO many things on set, back with film (and still today when its used on some times) there was a sense of focus and "not wanting to waste it" because it was film and you had to make sure it was done as close to perfect as possible so rehearsals where SO big and in my opinion now and days on a lot of sets not used enough, yes it's not digital and it's not "wasting film" but we are still wasting time. Digital ruined a little bit of the work ethic in film, because it you can simply "delete the last 30 takes" then what's the point? You're not looking for anything honest, or real, you're just throwing shit at the wall hoping something will stick. Again I'm just Fincher takes his art seriously but this honestly comes off as a man who dones't know what he's doing and hasn't been told "no" in a very long time. I know you said he gives "usefully feedback" but I don't think he does, if he's asking for that many takes then he's obviously not getting it.

[@mikespearwood3914]

I thought Kubrick was the weirdo with all the takes?

[@Dr_Kubrick]

00:38

[@gecko4729]

Fincher respects the actors. Kubrick doesn't

[@kumaranvij]

As long as you don't raise your voice or act abusively. Which many directors do.

[@gavranarh]

What happened to his supposed perfectionism on his last film? The Netflix one, with Fassbender as hitman? Utter crock of shit.

[@snoutyman]

I'd suggest to watch it again. I didn't like it the first time, liked it a lot the next time.

[@yuri_cobaia]

If this worked every actor or at least most them would play the best acting of their lifes in his movies

[@TheKingWhoWins]

It's about the overall film

[@351cleavland]

You should hear what his family says about their yearly christmas card photo.

[@spacedandy6778]

his last movie with fassbender was just bad.

[@jameslenney]

I don’t really care about the actors’ feelings given how much they’re paid and how available they are. But the crew… all those people who aren’t millionaires, who can’t see their families that night and who don’t know how their lives will go during the project.

[@MediaBuster]

The concept of endless takes like Fincher and Kubrick is just total BS... 10% difference is is akin to the mp3 320 v. wav sound debate. It is practically unnoticeable and that is assuming they got 10% better performance which is extremely unlikely. Spielberg said it best, he won't waste his time keep going to get something maybe 10-15% better, when he has other shots to do. It doesn't even make his movies better, his last film was awful (The Killer). He just heard Kubrick did it, so it's cool for him to do it.

[@jj112499]

10% is the differene between a good director and great director. The difference between an athlete finishing first in a race or second. The difference between a 1 star restaurant and a 2 star restaurant. If you want to be the best 10% is a big difference.

[@MediaBuster]

@@jj112499 Art is not measured the same way track and field is. I made my point. I would test 100 people to watch take 5 against take 76 and see how many could tell how many takes were in between them. I guess zero.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

Jack Nicholson was amazed that Kubrick used the takes he ended up using in The Shining. Jack is mugging and overacting the entire freakin' movie. Kubrick did the same thing to George C. Scott in Dr. Strangelove. He kept saying "do a really crazy and cartoonish take and then we'll do a more serious one." Then Kubrick used all of Scott's cartoonish takes, which is why his performance is so unhinged. I like Scott's performance in that movie, but Scott was PISSED. He vowed never to work with Kubrick again. Kubrick's endless takes didn't really make the acting any better in Full Metal Jacket. Aside from the one famous scene ("i AM in a world of shit") I don't think the acting is very good.

[@MediaBuster]

@@betterdaysareatoenailaway Filming someone mugging around or when they don't know it and then using it in the film is a far cry from doing 100 takes. One has nothing to do with the other. BTW I never heard that about Jack in the Shining.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

@@MediaBuster I can't remember where I read the George C Scott thing but I think it's common knowledge that Kubrick tricked George C Scott into playing the role of Gen. Turgidson far more ridiculously than the actor wanted to. He then talked Scott into doing over-the-top "practice" takes as warm up for the "real" takes, and then used the practice takes in the movie.

[@keith3421]

Most directors are fine with boom shadow.

[@orcapodmedia]

One could argue that Seven was one of his best films and now that he's got the power to do 100+ takes, his more recent films have gotten boring. Edit: Everyone's a critic tho, right.

[@andrewstephens8790]

100,000%

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

Seven had a very small cast. One of the criticisms of Seven is that there's almost no evidence of an outside world in that movie. It's very insular and claustrophobic. I don't think it even comes close to Zodiac, but everyone has a fav Fincher movie.

[@ken__2526]

Seven definitely is one of his best films and it has a sense of rawness that even Fight Club doesn't have, and I guess that comes from his looser approach to directing. It's still very strictly choreographed but not to the almost clinical, dance-like feel of his newer films. But, my favourite Fincher movies are Gone Girl, The Social Network and Zodiac. Newer Fincher movies are less interested in the excitement of the plot, but in the behaviour of the characters and his direction is very much locked in with that behaviour, the actions and reactions. His filmmaking has an observant quality that might not come off as raw or exciting but also isn't too clinical and joyless. Seven is intense the way thrillers are intense. Newer Fincher films tend to be intense the way chess games are intense.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

@@ken__2526 I think Zodiac is his best. Maybe he hadn't yet gone off the deep end with hundreds of takes by that point, or maybe it just worked for that movie. I love it though. I've seen it WAY too many times. Gone Girl is great too. I read the book before I saw the movie and at first I thought Ben Affleck was horribly miscast, but he was actually great. Tyler Perry was terrific too.

[@BonzoKilbourn]

The Killer was a bit of a snooze.

[@kennethnorman8079]

Well, it's a control thing. He said it in the beginning. You've got this expensive set, crew, travel. If you could just get the shot in one, then you're the least important thing in the equation. You need to keep doing it over and over hoping that something special happens by accident. So, by doing so many takes, Fincher is saying he's a good director, by accident. Most are. If it was film and he was getting charged for actually printing 100 takes, he'd be parking cars and, yes, probably have a podcast.

[@Shmancyfancy536]

Does anyone think some of this is just drummed up “lore” to get people talking?

[@Schoppenheer]

Well its absolutely no surprise to all astrologers that David is a Sun and Mercury in Virgo. Virgos are perfectionists and the most detail oriented. Then he has a Moon in Leo. I have researched directors and a lot of them have Leo placements. Leo = extravert, social and often in leader positions.Then he has a Venus in Libra which is very outgoing and social. This helps him as a director. Because Virgo is more introverted and nervous and anxious. Leo and Libra get him out of that in order to be a detail oriented director

[@charlessmyth]

[1:21] Sweat the assets :-) I wonder how he gets around the union rules for time on set and rest days, etc :-)

[@the_dead_man]

As with VFX, the first 3 ideas you try are the best you're gonna get. The rest are just justifying someone's ego or masking their incompetence. It's insane how many times a director makes you go in circles with notes only to realize that take 1 or 2 was the best.

[@TheKingWhoWins]

Sometimes you have to go through the process to know that.

[@jessehickman668]

Never meet your hero’s. They will only disappoint. 100 takes is not about perfection. It’s about control. I wonder what Clint Eastwood would say?

[@davekennedy6315]

The problem is that Finchers BEST films were his early ones that didn't have hundreds of takes per shot! Fight Club, Seven, Alien 3 (I LOVE this film!) The Game. Even Panic Room was fun. Fight Club is certainly in my top 10 favourite films. But since the 90s and by the sound of it, since the million takes per shot, he hasn't improved. I enjoyed Zodiac, Social Network, The Killer, Gone Girl, Benjamin Burton but I LOVE any of them. They were just good but nowhere near the GREAT/SPECTACULAR/EPIC 90s thrillers/chillers.

[@betterdaysareatoenailaway]

The Game is a forgotten classic.

[@farttruster8715]

i dont think hes made anything recently thats so good that this method rings true, seven and the game however are bangers

[@benjaminbjrklund743]

the thing with the many takes is that he doesnt know what he want. but none do. most directors just settle. but finchers bar is higher.

[@ShFred]

*Clint Eastwood spits on the ground and squints harder*

[@greyeyed123]

100 takes to be sure people will still be watching these films in 100 years.