More "Zodiac" Talk

Here's another great interview with David Fincher, that J.D. has found for you guys on laweekly.com. Thanks J.D.! As much as this film and the making of it has been talked about, I found this one great because Fincher talks a lot about the director's relationship with the studios and, what I thought to be very interesting, that the filmmakers didn't make the film despite the studios, but quite contrary, because the studios recognized the material and knew very well what they were getting going in.

In Fincher's opinion the decision makers at the big studios are not just about making a quick buck. Even though the business is about the bottom line, there's also a sense for art and immortality, and there is an awareness, that some films may not reel in the bucks on the opening weekend -- but in return they will be talked about even decades from now. And as I have seen from many comments from the Fincher followers it becomes clear that Fincher's films are the kind that grow with time and get better with every viewing.

"Five years from now is more important than five months from now, in my humble opinion. I’ll trade the opening weekend for a movie that can stand scrutiny five or ten years down the road."

Here's this great interview in it's full glory:
David Fincher discusses "Zodiac", L.A. Weekly

Okay and now let me post something that most of you will either hate or find extremely entertaining: I ran into this blog of a guy, who's bashing the living ship out of "Zodiac" and tries very hard to expose Fincher as a cheap copycat of Sidney Lumet. Obviously he didn't enjoy "Zodiac" all so much and hates it more with every viewing. For some reason I found his ramblings very amusing. What do you guys think?

P. Lawrence Hyman looses it over "Zodiac"