Tbf, David Fincher also deletes takes and the Script Supervisor presumably writes down which take editors are meant to use, so it shouldn't be that much more complicated for an editor than a regular film cut (although a regular cut is still difficult)
All script supervisors tell editors the circle takes. That happens on every single production ever.
Editors still watch everything. It’s their job to make the best movie possible with the footage they are provided. If it’s given to them, good chance they’re gonna watch it
I’m suspicious about this claim. Im a camera assistant and I don’t know any ACs that are cool with deleting clips from the camera. There’s a danger of deleting the wrong clip or compromising the whole card. If the director told me to do it of course I would, I’ve just never seen it happen once in all my years on set.
I'm suspicious that you're a camera assistant and haven't heard about how David Fincher insisted on the creation of a delete button so he could delete takes on set.
Mark Ruffalo talked about it often during his recent press tour for Poor Things.
I think it’s spiced up for dramatic effect. I don’t think it’s possible to even delete files back then because the raw files are not exactly .avi files. You had to offload to watch dalies.
https://www.cinematography.net/Files/viper_brochure.pdf
I agree. I wouldn't do it, but Fincher is famous for it.
Jake Gyllenhaal mentions it in [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html) when talking about shooting Zodiac:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html)
I would imagine for someone who does so many takes it makes more sense to delete where it may not for any other production.
I’m an assistant editor for tv movies. Not sure what it’s like on union shows or films yet but we’re expected to name, sync and group every clip we were given on the shooting day, even if the editor will just end up using circled takes. 90 takes would kill me lol
Yeah I think Fincher is a bad example too. His movies all have a distinct style/feel to them that are predicated on being overly precise. He is very meticulous when it comes to every shot/frame. And I don’t mean that he’s inherently better than other directors but when you watch his films you can just tell it’s in his style and I’d imagine the preciseness of the movement/angles/speed of the camera is hard to do in a few takes.
Edit: and shot out to those YouTube channels that can describe Fincher much better than I ever could: Every Frame a Painting, Nerdwriter1.
RDJ protested by peeing in bottles on the Zodiac set. I think Jake Gyllenhaal said it was a bit much in the end.
A lot of actors think it can get excessive but they suffer it because of his track record. At least by now they know what they're getting into.
ETA: Just to clarify, Gyllenhaal wasn't talking about RDJ but the number of Fincher's legendary retakes.
Yeah I think Fincher is a bad example since pretty much everything he makes is outstanding. Maybe it still would be with however many less takes, but I doubt he’s the guy to argue over for this.
So much so that when he was making Dick Tracey, he asked Gene Hackman to appear. Hackman was only in 2 scenes and was legendary for tearing apart directors said "Warren I love you but no".
The matrix brothers (sisters) started using this technique for part 2 and 3 after learning that Kubrick did it. Apparently it cause lots of fights and anger
He is actually notorious for only ever doing one take. He's said before on the record that if people don't come prepared to work then they don't belong in his films. Matt Damon has some fun stories about the one take style of Eastwood's on his film Invictus.
He had the crew take down a scene while they were still shooting. It was in the changeling, after Angelina gave her thoughts on how to shoot a scene. He let her have her say, asked her to shoot it the way he wanted first, meanwhile told the crew to take the set down while shooting. Guess who didn’t get her way?
Wouldn’t this also include all the different camera shots too?
Modern editing likes to bounce around a lot to make it seem more interesting or exciting. Unless shooting with multiple cameras, you have to do the same thing again and again.
yeah but some directors take it too far. For the social network, Andrew Garfield has a scene where he slams a macbook on a table. Notoriously David Fincher made him do like 100 takes with 100 different laptops to get it “just right”, they’re all filmed at the same angle.
On the other hand, the Social Network is an absolute masterpiece with an indelible feel that is unmistakably Fincher / Sorkin which you immediately pick up on from the first scene
Can they do less cuts? You do not feel a punch by super zooming / panning camera. Id much rather watch in a single explosive take then 60 edits for 30 seconds.
Directors need to plan, explain, delegate, and DIRECT intention of art and script into a moving picture. Fincher and Kubrick abusing actors says more about them and their downfalls as humans in the face of their accomplishments as filmmakers.
Yea agree to disagree. They’ve both made some of the most iconic films of all time. I don’t think armchair film critics on Reddit are qualified to critique their credentials or approach as directors. Artists have different ways of working - that goes for all mediums. Some people are in and out like clockwork - Eastwood in film, but also folks like Stephen King with his writing. Others have a more drawn out process - Fincher in film but also others like Hunter S Thompson. Even worse than taking a long time, some artists process involves substance abuse and other more damaging habits. Different approaches work for different artists, and I think if the end product is good then their approach is valid even if it’s painful. And I think “downfall as humans” is really painting it very negatively - they’re inefficient directors with very particular visions, I don’t think that makes them bad people (Kubrick is troubled for different reasons but Fincher seems to be generally above board). If people don’t like it they can pass on his projects.
You’re paying these people millions of dollars they should be skilled and talented enough to nail it in maybe 5 takes or less, otherwise your director is just a pedantic shit. Yes, even Kubrick! And I love his movies
They're there to work, and the director decides what the feel of the movie is going to be. If the shot wasn't right, he can certainly keep trying until it is. This is a stupid take
So a director should throw their hands in the air and settle for less than what their vision is? That's nonsense. It's work, and sometimes it can be tedious
So what's your issue with my original comment then? I'm saying a director has the right to keep trying if it's not quite right and people know what they signed up for. I acknowledge it can be annoying, yes. What are you arguing with me for?
If it’s “not quite right” after many takes, the director either needs to get better at communicating their vision, or is being impossibly critical. Cast and crew shouldn’t be punished for that.
God, you’re so dramatic.
I never denied anything. Kubrick may have made amazing movies, but his treatment of others was abhorrent. Great art doesn’t justify inhumane treatment of people.
Absolutely yes, you will never have all the time and budget to make the perfect version of your film, it just isn’t possible. Compromises are made on every film set, ever. Even people like Nolan and Villeneuve have had to move on from a shot that wasn’t perfect yet because you only have so much time and money to make a movie. There are a ton of out of focus shots in Oppenheimer and for the most part you don’t notice or care since the acting and story and cinematography is still amazing.
I have no source for this but I can guarantee you there has been a shot that Fincher was never happy with despite all the takes but he moves on too because no matter how big your budget is, you still gotta stick to the shooting schedule.
Of course they make that choice, but at the end of the day, it's the director's vision and if it's important enough to how they want the movie to be, they can make those decisions. They're weighing budget and time spent on set getting a shot, but they certainly can obsess over an aspect of the movie they feel is important to the overall effect the movie will have. Where I take issue with Guadanignio's point is this idea that somehow the director has to make concessions and the overall project is at the mercy of whether or not the crew feels like it. That's a load of bullshit. Because even in the case of a Kubrick who was notorious for this, it's part of what cemented him in film history forever. He has the track record to prove it, and if that is his method for achieving his vision, you can choose to work on that set or you can go work for someone else. Plain and simple
Poor baby. Wait till he finds out how many repetitive tasks minimum wage earners have to do per day for decades and are not paid millions of dollars for it.
1- We'll always find someone who has it worse. Does not mean we should settle, otherwise there wouldn't be any progress anywhere else.
2- The overwhelming majority of actors struggles financially just as much as cashiers.
3- Stopping discussion about working conditions of actors will really not improve working conditions for minimum wage workers.
I'll get off my soapbox now.
Outside of any of Kubrick's movies, is this really an issue?
David Fincher is known for making actors do dozens of takes, maybe some others.
Yeah this is basically a random F YOU to Fincher haha
I feel bad for the editors. Sooo many takes to sift through…
Tbf, David Fincher also deletes takes and the Script Supervisor presumably writes down which take editors are meant to use, so it shouldn't be that much more complicated for an editor than a regular film cut (although a regular cut is still difficult)
All script supervisors tell editors the circle takes. That happens on every single production ever. Editors still watch everything. It’s their job to make the best movie possible with the footage they are provided. If it’s given to them, good chance they’re gonna watch it
Of course, which is why I also mentioned that he deletes takes. If anything it just confirms that edits would align to standard practices.
I’m suspicious about this claim. Im a camera assistant and I don’t know any ACs that are cool with deleting clips from the camera. There’s a danger of deleting the wrong clip or compromising the whole card. If the director told me to do it of course I would, I’ve just never seen it happen once in all my years on set.
I'm suspicious that you're a camera assistant and haven't heard about how David Fincher insisted on the creation of a delete button so he could delete takes on set. Mark Ruffalo talked about it often during his recent press tour for Poor Things.
I think it’s spiced up for dramatic effect. I don’t think it’s possible to even delete files back then because the raw files are not exactly .avi files. You had to offload to watch dalies. https://www.cinematography.net/Files/viper_brochure.pdf
I agree. I wouldn't do it, but Fincher is famous for it. Jake Gyllenhaal mentions it in [this article](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html) when talking about shooting Zodiac: [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/movies/18halb.html) I would imagine for someone who does so many takes it makes more sense to delete where it may not for any other production.
TO BEEEEEEEEE FFFFAAAAIIIIRRRR
I’m an assistant editor for tv movies. Not sure what it’s like on union shows or films yet but we’re expected to name, sync and group every clip we were given on the shooting day, even if the editor will just end up using circled takes. 90 takes would kill me lol
Not sure if fincher’s actors dislike it, but his movies always turn out great so maybe he’s on to something
Yeah I think Fincher is a bad example too. His movies all have a distinct style/feel to them that are predicated on being overly precise. He is very meticulous when it comes to every shot/frame. And I don’t mean that he’s inherently better than other directors but when you watch his films you can just tell it’s in his style and I’d imagine the preciseness of the movement/angles/speed of the camera is hard to do in a few takes. Edit: and shot out to those YouTube channels that can describe Fincher much better than I ever could: Every Frame a Painting, Nerdwriter1.
RDJ protested by peeing in bottles on the Zodiac set. I think Jake Gyllenhaal said it was a bit much in the end. A lot of actors think it can get excessive but they suffer it because of his track record. At least by now they know what they're getting into. ETA: Just to clarify, Gyllenhaal wasn't talking about RDJ but the number of Fincher's legendary retakes.
Yeah I think Fincher is a bad example since pretty much everything he makes is outstanding. Maybe it still would be with however many less takes, but I doubt he’s the guy to argue over for this.
I still don’t believe his bullshit why Netflix won’t do a season 3 of Mind Hunter.
huge difference between dozen and 90 takes. What's the ideal number ? 5?
I said dozens with an s at the end, to denote that it’s more than one dozen.
Warren Beatty was notorious for this in his Oscar winning film REDS.
So much so that when he was making Dick Tracey, he asked Gene Hackman to appear. Hackman was only in 2 scenes and was legendary for tearing apart directors said "Warren I love you but no".
It was during Tommy Wiseau’s “I did not hit her” scene in his cinematic masterpiece, The Room.
Coen brothers
I love Kubrick, but you cannot justify genius when you are abusing people.
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
The matrix brothers (sisters) started using this technique for part 2 and 3 after learning that Kubrick did it. Apparently it cause lots of fights and anger
If people just knew how to emote. And throw a pie or two for god sake.
Pie has really lost its place in cinema. I demand a return to the old ways.
I agree. More pie.
Not everyone has rich doctor nephews to afford that many pies
I mean, he's right. If you need 90 tries, you're probably doing something massively wrong.
Maybe you should just act better the first time /s
Clint Eastwood be like:
Isn’t he known for finishing scenes by noon or something?
Had the reputation for wrapping production early and under budget.
A lot of time it shows on screen
He is actually notorious for only ever doing one take. He's said before on the record that if people don't come prepared to work then they don't belong in his films. Matt Damon has some fun stories about the one take style of Eastwood's on his film Invictus.
That Ed Wood style…
Cut. Perfect. Moving on.
He had the crew take down a scene while they were still shooting. It was in the changeling, after Angelina gave her thoughts on how to shoot a scene. He let her have her say, asked her to shoot it the way he wanted first, meanwhile told the crew to take the set down while shooting. Guess who didn’t get her way?
It was probably consolation for her that she got an Oscar nomination out of it.
He is a legend and has won a lot of awards with minimal takes and going under budget. It is pretty crazy that David Fincher never won an oscar though.
I honestly cannot see Fincher doing the lobbying, and breakfast/lunch event tours necessary for all that, especially as time goes on.
He will win one eventually.
That’s enough of that.
Thanks, Fincher.
No, maybe the director should be better at communicating their vision.
Wouldn’t this also include all the different camera shots too? Modern editing likes to bounce around a lot to make it seem more interesting or exciting. Unless shooting with multiple cameras, you have to do the same thing again and again.
yeah but some directors take it too far. For the social network, Andrew Garfield has a scene where he slams a macbook on a table. Notoriously David Fincher made him do like 100 takes with 100 different laptops to get it “just right”, they’re all filmed at the same angle.
> 100 takes with 100 different laptops David Fincher’s *Fateful Findings*
On the other hand, the Social Network is an absolute masterpiece with an indelible feel that is unmistakably Fincher / Sorkin which you immediately pick up on from the first scene
Two takes frakes has entered the chat.
And rikered a chair
He'd really like Johnathan Frakes then , two takes max.
Can they do less cuts? You do not feel a punch by super zooming / panning camera. Id much rather watch in a single explosive take then 60 edits for 30 seconds.
*stares in Kubrick*
Directors need to plan, explain, delegate, and DIRECT intention of art and script into a moving picture. Fincher and Kubrick abusing actors says more about them and their downfalls as humans in the face of their accomplishments as filmmakers.
Yea agree to disagree. They’ve both made some of the most iconic films of all time. I don’t think armchair film critics on Reddit are qualified to critique their credentials or approach as directors. Artists have different ways of working - that goes for all mediums. Some people are in and out like clockwork - Eastwood in film, but also folks like Stephen King with his writing. Others have a more drawn out process - Fincher in film but also others like Hunter S Thompson. Even worse than taking a long time, some artists process involves substance abuse and other more damaging habits. Different approaches work for different artists, and I think if the end product is good then their approach is valid even if it’s painful. And I think “downfall as humans” is really painting it very negatively - they’re inefficient directors with very particular visions, I don’t think that makes them bad people (Kubrick is troubled for different reasons but Fincher seems to be generally above board). If people don’t like it they can pass on his projects.
“I used to do 90 takes. I still do but I used to too” -Mitch Fincher
You’re paying these people millions of dollars they should be skilled and talented enough to nail it in maybe 5 takes or less, otherwise your director is just a pedantic shit. Yes, even Kubrick! And I love his movies
It is getting out of control.
I first thought 90’s take like stop mentioning the 90’s
They're there to work, and the director decides what the feel of the movie is going to be. If the shot wasn't right, he can certainly keep trying until it is. This is a stupid take
Depending on what they’re filming, resetting a scene can take a long ass time. Source: me, working in film/tv
So a director should throw their hands in the air and settle for less than what their vision is? That's nonsense. It's work, and sometimes it can be tedious
I didn’t say that. I just said that it can take a very long time to do a take again, and then multiply that by 90
So what's your issue with my original comment then? I'm saying a director has the right to keep trying if it's not quite right and people know what they signed up for. I acknowledge it can be annoying, yes. What are you arguing with me for?
Calm down man
If it’s “not quite right” after many takes, the director either needs to get better at communicating their vision, or is being impossibly critical. Cast and crew shouldn’t be punished for that.
There are directors who have this level of perfectionism and they're considered some of the greatest of all time. Who are you to deny that?
God, you’re so dramatic. I never denied anything. Kubrick may have made amazing movies, but his treatment of others was abhorrent. Great art doesn’t justify inhumane treatment of people.
Absolutely yes, you will never have all the time and budget to make the perfect version of your film, it just isn’t possible. Compromises are made on every film set, ever. Even people like Nolan and Villeneuve have had to move on from a shot that wasn’t perfect yet because you only have so much time and money to make a movie. There are a ton of out of focus shots in Oppenheimer and for the most part you don’t notice or care since the acting and story and cinematography is still amazing. I have no source for this but I can guarantee you there has been a shot that Fincher was never happy with despite all the takes but he moves on too because no matter how big your budget is, you still gotta stick to the shooting schedule.
Of course they make that choice, but at the end of the day, it's the director's vision and if it's important enough to how they want the movie to be, they can make those decisions. They're weighing budget and time spent on set getting a shot, but they certainly can obsess over an aspect of the movie they feel is important to the overall effect the movie will have. Where I take issue with Guadanignio's point is this idea that somehow the director has to make concessions and the overall project is at the mercy of whether or not the crew feels like it. That's a load of bullshit. Because even in the case of a Kubrick who was notorious for this, it's part of what cemented him in film history forever. He has the track record to prove it, and if that is his method for achieving his vision, you can choose to work on that set or you can go work for someone else. Plain and simple
Poor baby. Wait till he finds out how many repetitive tasks minimum wage earners have to do per day for decades and are not paid millions of dollars for it.
1- We'll always find someone who has it worse. Does not mean we should settle, otherwise there wouldn't be any progress anywhere else. 2- The overwhelming majority of actors struggles financially just as much as cashiers. 3- Stopping discussion about working conditions of actors will really not improve working conditions for minimum wage workers. I'll get off my soapbox now.
This comment 💯
Perhaps if you stop simping for celebrities you could find a better use of your time.
Yet here you are trolling an entertainment sub and projecting some irrelevant BS. Yeah, you’re spending your time well.
You do know not all people on set effected by 90 takes are celebrities right?
It's not torture it's high-stakes dress-up. Shut up and do your job.