One of the major questions this article digs into is why filmmakers such as Brian De Palma, Kimberly Pierce or David Fincher (as well as a ton of unmentioned ones, e.g. James Cameron with a decade-long abscence from feature film entertainment or most notably: Terrence Malick!) all seem to take enormously long breaks inbetween their cinematic offerings.
With David Fincher this seems clear to all of us: Firstly he is waiting for the right project to roll around; something that is meaningful and challenging to him, and some material that he feels he can put a new spin on. But also it certainly is Fincher's thrive for perfection: If Fincher dedicates years of his life to one particular picture, he wants to shoot it exactly the way he sees it in his head -- making him uncompromising in matters of style, creative control ... and budget!
Notably also is the author of this article foresaw one of the most vital dilemmas the film went into with its marketing and the audience that was likely to be appealed by the campaign:
Far from a failure — the film still bears Fincher’s stamp of complete directorial control and an immaculate attention to detail — Zodiac will nonetheless be challenged by an unfortunate shift in audience expectations, particularly at the multiplexes. A nation that has now embraced wholesale torture as a prerequisite for Saturday night entertainment may not be wowed by Zodiac’s commitment to forensic realism, especially when the main engine driving the film’s marketing is that it’s courtesy of the director of Se7en.
To sum it up: This is a well-observed and thoughtful article about Fincher's ZODIAC. I hope, even after the cinematic and DVD-release, you still find this interesting.
Just the Facts: David Fincher’s Zodiac