Finchers 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'

[Spider-Fan]

I agree that Hanks gave an award-worthy performance; however, the film didn't even deserve to be nominated for Best Picture, let alone win it. I have a feeling the Academy will suffer the same sort of blindness this year, and will award a film which is a visual treat instead of rewarding a film of a substantive nature.

I disagree. Forrest Gump definately deserved the Oscar nomination. However, The Shawshank Redemption was the more deserving movie to win the award.

He won't. It'll go to Mickey Rourke or Sean Penn I'm guessing.

Pitt shouldn't even be nominated though.

 

[The Guard]

How so? Every single similarity he pointed out is relevant.

I'm not going to deny that there aren't similarities, and some of them are clearly recurring themes and ideas, but many of those similarities are pretty vague. It's sort of like me going "Superman and Batman are not unique characters because they both have costumes with chest insignias, secret identities, trouble with women, and operate in large cities".

Your friend apparently has a problem with a writer utilizing similar themes and ideas. Themes and ideas that while found in GUMP and BUTTON...are also found in many other movies. I find that hilarious.

And, when you consider Eric Roth-- who also wrote Forrest Gump-- is responsible for this film's screenplay, it makes his complaints all the more valid.

When did "the writer uses a common theme" become a valid complaint? Do you know much "art" that invalidates if that's the case?

I drew several of these comparisons myself while sitting in the theater. While the characters and occurrences are not identical to one another, they are similar.

Sure, they're similar. There are also some massive differences between the films, and even their uses of some of the shared themes.

It proves that Eric Roth is incapable of taking substantive material and translating it into a substantive film.

I'm curious as to what kind of substance you wanted to see from a film with this particular premise that was not seen in some capacity. The film does delve both into the nature of this premise, and the impact it has on various lives, as well as wrapping that in a larger theme about life and mortality.

How does a writer using similar themes that he clearly values and has always valued in adapting a short story into a three hour film "prove" that the film lacks substance as an adaption? It proves he's not the most variety-driven person in the world, and so what?

The former was a tragicomic biography about a ******ed man becoming accidentally successful in a culture that doesn't value intelligence. The latter was a satire about society's perception of age told through the lens of a person born as a full grown old man and aging backwards to infanthood.

As he himself admits, this right here is a massive, massive difference. The entire premise and overarching theme of the work is different.

It's nearly impossible to overstate the similarities between the two films. Both are about boys born with disabilities to well-to-do white Southern families.

How is Forrest Gump's mother "well to do"? She runs a boarding house and struggled to make ends meet, didn't she? I never got the impression the Gumps were wealthy. One is a boarder...and one makes buttons. Being born white, male and southern and into a less than ideal situation is about where the similarity there ends.

The disabilities thing...I can kind of see that. But it's more of a common theme than "the same damn thing again". One is a real world disability, which Forrest quickly moves beyond. The other is him being born an old man who ages backwards, which is completely fictional, and never quite overcome during the film.

I'm sorry, but that's a vague similarity at best. Both movies do require the premise to involve a "disability" of sorts, but both movies use this device quite differently.

Both films are told in a series of episodic flashbacks.

So...a writer uses a screenwriting technique that he's used before. Who would think that a professional writer would use a screenwriting technique he's used before? A tactic that many screenwriters use, and to good effect.

Gump and Button are both raised in the absence of their fathers, and by mothers who are impossibly kind and faultless.

Those are basic similarities, sure. Here's the thing though:

Button is born to his real mother, and she dies in childbirth. He is then abandoned by his real father, leaving him with no family.

The woman Gump is raised by is his real mother. The woman Button is raised by isn't.

One of them is white, and middle class. One is black, and lower class.

Forrest never meets his father, that I can recall. Button does, and he gets to know him, and in fact, has an entire arc with him. Within these incredibly vague similarities are quite a few differences.

They both fall in love as children with the one blonde girl who will prove to be the love of their life.

Blonde? I could have sworn that Daisy was a redhead. Re: Childhood love, you could make the same claim to Bruce Wayne falling for Rachel, or for almost any "young love" story. Yes, it's a similarity. Is it neccessarily a "bad" one? The fact that they fell in love when they did and where they did is used to fantastic effect as she ages and he grows younger.

They both meet and are friendly with poor black people, with the social problems of said blacks taking a backseat to the comic potential of a white man being in their midst

Gump meets and is friendly with damn near everyone, not just black people.

Button is actually adopted and raised by poor black people. He is not only friendly with them, he loves and works with them.

Almost everything takes a backseat to comedy in GUMP. But isn't the social problems of blacks one of the major themes featured in the movie? BUTTON deals with an entirely different era, and an entirely different society in general.

And...do we really need to boil this down to the level of "They both meet and are friendly with people" when looking for similarities?

Through accident and circumstance, they both end up traveling the world and getting involved in important historical and cultural events.

Short of going to Vietnam, I believe Gump just travels the country, doesn't he? When he runs, and when he tours with the All American Team?

Button travels the world more than Gump ever did, but not so much the country itself. It's almost the reverse, so I'd hardly call that a similarity.

Sure, their impact on the world around them is sort of a similarity, but that's common to almost any story, and the use of that device is markedly different. Gump's is used to highlight historical occurrences. Button's is used to highlight ideas about life in general. And as for the historical stuff...gosh...someone becomes involved in things that have happened (history) by existing in this world and being there through circumstance?

BUTTON's use of this device appears to be a far more toned-down and relevantr in terms of his historical relevance than GUMP's was. GUMP is shown to influence popular culture. Button, near as I can tell, doesn't. GUMP's stuff is played for laughs. Button's historical touchpoints are used to illustrate the deeper meanings alluded to in earlier scenes.

Their relationships with said blonde girls are on-again, off-again, resulting in a decades-long series of brief encounters ending with the girl being unnecessarily cruel and Gump or Button being unreasonably forgiving.

Daisy is a redhead. Yes, the women are *****es to them, and they forgive to the women they love. That is a similarity. But again, the contexts are completely different.

The girls, conversely, live equally exciting lives, traveling the world as they pursue a career in performance art but ultimately failing due to health problems and realize that they find no happiness in their bohemian life styles without the down-home Southern boys they loved as children.

That's a similarity, albeit another slightly vague one. Daisy is painted as far more successful and talented than Jenny ever was. Jenny latched onto some hippies. Daisy was so good she sought out a prestigious school and latched onto a famous choreographer.

Both relationships eventually culminate in marriage and a single child, but, due to reasons of illness, their marriages are short-lived, and the remaining parent is forced to care for their perfect child alone.

That's ridiculously vague and hardly relevant on the same level.

Benjamin leaves voluntariliy so that his child can have a father, realizing the strain he will be placing on his family because of who he is.

Jenny dies of what is generally assumed to be AIDS because of her lifestyle choices.

And Daisy is not forced to care for the child alone, she remarries another man, who becomes the child's father.

Your friend also fails to mention that after Daisy grows old, she ends up living with and caring for Benjamin.

Neither Gump nor Button ever seem to be particularly distressed about anything

Some people aren't. A similarity, sure. Hardly proof of a complete lack of creativity or depth.

and all the other characters are made out to be fools for not taking things in such stride.

How so?

The moral at the end of the story is either "you never know what you're gonna get" or "you never know what's coming for you", depending on which version you're watching.

That's one of several themes in the films. The main theme of Forrest Gump appears to be that you never know what life will hold, or the meaning that events have, and that you should make the best of it. The overarcing theme of Benjamin Button is that you never know how and when your life will end, so you should appreciate it as much as you can.

Lt. Dan becomes Captain Mike. The Bubba-Gump shrimp boat becomes Captain Mike's tugboat, as well as Button's father's sailboat.

The "commanding officer" bit is a similarity, but again, used very differently.

There's a boat that plays a key role in both movies? Thats the big similarity that makes Roth so uncreative?

One of them is a tugboat where an aimless young Benjamin Button works his first real job, learns about work ethic, and goes to war, before setting out to find out what he really wants to do.

One of them is a shrimping boat where an older Forrest Gump attempts to fulfill his and Bubba's dream and survives a hurricane, which allows him to fulfill his and Bubba's dream for real.

I guess surviving something dangerous on a boat is sort of a similarity, but the relevances are completely different.

The feather Gump sees flying around in the wind becomes a hummingbird out at sea.

And the structure, use, and themes of the images are completely different.

Lt. Dan's loss of his legs after a war injury becomes Daisy's crippled legs after a car accident, complete with scenes in foreign hospitals where the injured party sends Gump or Button away disdainfully.

That's a similar theme, yes. However, the contexts of the scenes are completely different, as are the aftermaths between the characters and the "cripples".

Infantry battles in Vietnam become naval battles in World War II, with the protagonist being the only one to come out unscathed.

Didn't Gump rescue Lt. Dan in FORREST GUMP?

Gump's cross-country running becomes Button's travels on a motorcycle.

How is this even remotely a similarity? They both have hobbies?

Gump's influence on Watergate and the invention of the smiley face become Button's encounter with the oldest woman to swim the English channel and his mystical connection to Hurricane Katrina.

What in God's name does Button's encounter with Hurricane Katrina and the oldest woman to swim the English channel have to do with the kind of devices that were just mentioned for GUMP in terms of similarities?

The scenes where Button and Daisy finally live happily together could have easily been described as "we were like peas and carrots again."

As could most relationships that are portrayed as such. Gosh, we've never seen a couple "get back together" before on film.

The famous "run, Forrest, run" scene becomes Button learning to walk as an elderly seven-year-old.

Uh...no. The contexts are completely different. In one scene, Forrest and Jenny are essentially alone. In another, they are surrounded by well wishers and friends. He does not walk (or run for the first time, discovering some fabulous new talent that will take him places) out of desperation in BUTTON, as he does in GUMP, he walks because of the nature of the scene, which has nothing to do with danger, or desperation, and everything to do with hope and faith. He never "couldn't walk" in FORREST GUMP, either, he just had the braces to help him.

Yes, the wheelchair and the braces are a similar "crutch" for a disabled person, and moving beyond them is significant on the same level but...he's born an old man. A wheelchair isn't exactly out of the question, considering.

Gump watching Jenny play guitar at the night club becomes Button watching Daisy dance at a concert hall.

Kind of like any character who's ever watched his loved one do anything.

Really?

He's watching her on Broadway.

Jenny was at a night club.

Broadway...night club.

Hmm...

Gump going to the Black Panther meeting and then saying goodbye to Jenny as her boyfriend calls her onto a bus becomes Button going to a beatnik party and saying goodbye to Daisy as her boyfriend calls her to a cab. It just goes on and on and on.

That's a relatively minor similarity. Button's use of the device is quite different than GUMP's.

There are differences, of course - Gump's duncehood versus Button's reverse aging being the most glaring example - but they're ultimately trivial and don't change any of the film's core messages.

How is the entire premise being different an "ultimately trivial" difference?

Fincher directs The Curious Case of Benjamin Button with far more flair, beauty, and fantasy than Robert Zemeckis did with Forrest Gump, and had Forrest Gump never existed, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button could very well be called a good film

I don't see how FORREST GUMP has any bearing on this film's quality. Unless the message here is "no film can ever repeat the themes or ideas seen in part in another film, especially if a writer who likes to use those themes wrote the other film".

 

[Team Andino]

I thought it might be interesting to see but I didn't have the money to go see it. My friend though was really interested so he said hed pay for me if I took him and I have to say I really enjoyed it. I'll probably never see it from beginning to end ever again but for the one time I did see it I did really enjoy it

 

[Watson]

Just some thoughts on the Forrest Gump/Benjamin Button similarities...

While I do get that there are some definite similarties in narrative, I have to agree with the Guard in that I don't think Roth was ripping off his own story. The way I see it Forrest Gump is not as concerned with the importance of the aging process in the same way the Benjamin Button is. In Benjamin so much of the story is affected by how people age. Both Jman and the Guard mentioned how Daisy was a ***** to Benjamin in her youth, and only later does she come around. I think that had less to do with how she viewed him and more to do with how her age played a factor. Teens and twenty somethings generally (no offense to other twenty somethings) act pretty selfishly. They want to travel, and drink, and have sex, and they (usually) don't want to think about things like settling down. I think that's why Daisy came across the way she did, whereas Benjamin might have been ready at that time. Similarily, when Benjamin finally hits his twenties, although his intial [BLACKOUT]decision to leave Daisy is because he is worried about what raising his daughter, a very unselfish thing to do[/BLACKOUT], he also travels, backpacks-other things that twenty somethings want to do. Gump, on the other hand remains pretty static throughout the film. He is always the same person, doting after Jenny and seemingly stumbling into important situations by accident or through naive good heartedness. The maturing process isn't really there.

I think it is also important to note the big different between Jenny and Daisy, which the Guard already got at. I always though that Jenny serves as the polar opposite of Gump-Very bright, beautiful, but born in very bad circumstances and rather then Gump who stumbles into good situations, she consciously makes choices that land her in bad situations. She is what Gump could have been were one or two things different in his life, or if he had made another choice. Daisy, on the other hand, is only the opposite of Button in the aging process. Otherwise they are both much more fully realized people. They both make many choices throughout the film, some bad, some good-Just like real people.

 

[deathfromabove]

I don't see how FORREST GUMP has any bearing on this film's quality. Unless the message here is "no film can ever repeat the themes or ideas seen in part in another film, especially if a writer who likes to use those themes wrote the other film".

denile aint just a river huh?

the obvious similarities between the two movies nearly ruined button for me.

you can try and explain away the common ground any way you like but that doesnt make them any less obvious.

and its not just the themes.

some of the major events, the hummingbird standing in for a feather, the ridiculous silly one liner from his mother that sums up the entire movie and could have easily been swapped for the other, the woman who he pines after until, finally realizing that she is not destined for greatness, comes to him for love and acceptance, and provide him with offspring, the lovably bizzare ship boat captian with daddy issues, going to war, suddenly and miraculously learning to walk, the black friend with a oddly similar condition, becoming conveintly wealthy later in life, etc etc etc.

now i am all for filmakers returning to explore similar themes (and even visual motifs) again and again. thats what all artists do. but i felt this was something else entirely.

its like roth took out the gump screenplay and said "well this worked before and so did this and so did that..." and it showed. we it got to be the fourth or fifith "gump-esq" moment i kinda lost the movie a bit. maybe im in the minority here but i found it counterproductive to my ability to absorb the narrative.

as i sit here i have still not made up my mind about the movie. i do think button is a much better movie than gump in almost every way but i still need to let it sink in a bit more. usually thats a good sign. but i must say, upon first viewing, the similarities and old familiar places stuck out and took me out of the film several times, and that is something as a screenwriter, you want to try and avoid.

 

[The Guard]

the obvious similarities between the two movies nearly ruined button for me.

Sucks to be you. Most people don't let "similar themes" ruin a movie for them. Seeing as how the themes found in the movie are also found in life, many other movies, etc.

some of the major events, the hummingbird standing in for a feather

How does the hummingbird stand in for the feather. And be specific, please.

the ridiculous silly one liner from his mother that sums up the entire movie

If you really think the whole movie can be summed up by "You never know what's coming for you", you missed the point of the film.

and could have easily been swapped for the other, the woman who he pines after until, finally realizing that she is not destined for greatness, comes to him for love and acceptance, and provide him with offspring, the lovably bizzare ship boat captian with daddy issues, going to war, suddenly and miraculously learning to walk, the black friend with a oddly similar condition, becoming conveintly wealthy later in life, etc etc etc.

All very vague and basic similarities. There are more differences to every one of those elements as used in BENJAMIN BUTTON and FORREST GUMP than similarities. You just want to boil it down to basics.

Why you would do that with a specific element is beyond me.

now i am all for filmakers returning to explore similar themes (and even visual motifs) again and again. thats what all artists do. but i felt this was something else entirely.

Uh huh.

its like roth took out the gump screenplay and said "well this worked before and so did this and so did that..." and it showed. we it got to be the fourth or fifith "gump-esq" moment i kinda lost the movie a bit. maybe im in the minority here but i found it counterproductive to my ability to absorb the narrative.

GUMP-esque moment?

I don't follow.

Oh, the vague similarities.

as i sit here i have still not made up my mind about the movie. i do think button is a much better movie than gump in almost every way but i still need to let it sink in a bit more. usually thats a good sign. but i must say, upon first viewing, the similarities and old familiar places stuck out and took me out of the film several times, and that is something as a screenwriter, you want to try and avoid.

There is simply no logical way that a screenwriter can always avoid someone else's interpretation of their script, or them being reminded of another movie the screenwriter wrote. If that's the level you're thinking on when you assess the film, you're going to be "taken out of it" regardless.

 

[Matt.S99]

Saw it yesterday. I loved it. I like movies like these.
I thought Brad was excellent in it. I thought Cate was(obviously great). Shes my favorite actress and she never disappoints.
The make up and CGI jobs were amazing. Im still in awe.
Cant wait till it comes out on DVD.

 

[deathfromabove]

Sucks to be you. Most people don't let "similar themes" ruin a movie for them. Seeing as how the themes found in the movie are also found in life, many other movies, etc.

look, i already said it wasnt the themes that bothered me. youve quoted my entier post very carefully, i would also assume that you read its contents as dilligently.

there were simply too many elements that reminded me (as i sat watching) of the prior film. any one of these similarities alone would have certainly gone unnoticed but the accumilation of events, visual elements, and chracter traits affected the movie negatively imo.

you can compare and contrast the whys and hows all you want, break my words into tiny easily digestable bits but but my point is that it ruined the narrative for me. thats not up for argument.

 

[PWN3R]

LOVED this. Gave it a 9, very enjoyable film with tons of interesting things to offer. The only bit that I can't say I appreciated was using Katrina as a backdrop for the story. Small gripe.

Great movie, Cate Blanchett :heart:!

 

[Dark Victory]

Just got back from seeing this the third time and I still love it. The only problems I have with the movie is that it's a little slow when Brad Pitt meets Tilda Swinton when they have an affair and I wish they never showed Benjamin's face when he was a teenager not because I think he was ugly or anything like that, but to leave it up to us to imagine what Brad looked like in his teens. Still an amazing movie. 9.5/10

 

[The Guard]

look, i already said it wasnt the themes that bothered me. youve quoted my entier post very carefully, i would also assume that you read its contents as dilligently.

there were simply too many elements that reminded me (as i sat watching) of the prior film. any one of these similarities alone would have certainly gone unnoticed but the accumilation of events, visual elements, and chracter traits affected the movie negatively imo.

Again. Sucks to be you. A theme is an idea, or a concept. It sucks that similar ideas and concepts negatively affected the movie for you on some level.

 

[Episode29]

Again. Sucks to be you. A theme is an idea, or a concept. It sucks that similar ideas and concepts negatively affected the movie for you on some level.

LOL. Aren't you a pithy little fellow. It's like you feel personally threatened by the dude's (genuinely valid) dislike of the movie. He's far from alone too...

By the way, I love this write up on the similarities between the two from over at http://madeinmyhead.org:

A white man is born fatherless in the south with birth defects that lead many to think he may never walk nor live a normal life. His saintly mother believes in his potential anyway. At a young age, the man learns to walk and sheds his exoskeleton of locomotive aids. Around this time, he also meets the love of his life, a vivacious girl who grows into a bold woman who parts ways with the man to have her own wild adventures. Meanwhile, the man reaches adulthood, and puts in a wartime stint in the U.S. military. During this stint, the man proves at first an indifferent asset, but during his one firefight, he turns out to be very valuable, saving the day singlehandedly, while also witnessing the death of one of his best friends. The man also spends much time on a small ocean vessel, serving alongside a rowdy, grizzled, hard-drinking man of the sea. This salty sailor serves as one of our man’s two best male friends; the other is a black man who first teaches our man the lessons of friendship before departing forever.

Our man wanders all around the world, his life brushing up against key historical moments of the 20th century. At some point he returns to his childhood home, and his mother dies. The man comes into considerable wealth through blind luck. Around this time, his lifelong love returns from her adventures, ready to commit to him. During their brief time together, they conceive a child. The couple part ways, due to the woman’s perceived inability to take care of the man. He does not raise the child through its early years but later makes an appearance in its life. The woman eventually dies in bed from illness. The man’s later years are hardly touched on, even though the movie has lavished much attention on his early and middle years.

The entire story dwells repeatedly on the theme of life’s uncertainty and, in contrast, on the notion of fate or coincidence. The film’s symbol for these themes is a small object seen hovering improbably in the air. A narrative frame scene punctuates the story, as does the main character’s drawling voice-over.

Acceptable Answers:
Forrest Gump; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.*
* Both movies were written by Eric Roth, a man who now owes me seventeen dollars.

 

[Iglius]

Ouch.

 

[luke1234]

Im a fincher nut, so this was definitely his masterpiece. Every still in this movie is perfectly planned and the lighting is so beautiful. Acting was top notch, the only small gripe was Eric Roths writing. Its good but it never goes in a direction that would surprise you. I like experimental writing and it seemed to safe to me at some points. Other then that it was a beautiful movie that i will defineitly see again over and over. 10/10

 

[deathfromabove]

Again. Sucks to be you. A theme is an idea, or a concept. It sucks that similar ideas and concepts negatively affected the movie for you on some level.

great response. 10/10. A+

will read again and again.

for someone who writes so much your comprehension could use some work there, friendo.

 

[deathfromabove]

LOL. Aren't you a pithy little fellow. It's like you feel personally threatened by the dude's (genuinely valid) dislike of the movie.

yeah he does that...

He's far from alone too...

By the way, I love this write up on the similarities between the two from over at http://madeinmyhead.org:

A white man is born fatherless in the south with birth defects that lead many to think he may never walk nor live a normal life. His saintly mother believes in his potential anyway. At a young age, the man learns to walk and sheds his exoskeleton of locomotive aids. Around this time, he also meets the love of his life, a vivacious girl who grows into a bold woman who parts ways with the man to have her own wild adventures. Meanwhile, the man reaches adulthood, and puts in a wartime stint in the U.S. military. During this stint, the man proves at first an indifferent asset, but during his one firefight, he turns out to be very valuable, saving the day singlehandedly, while also witnessing the death of one of his best friends. The man also spends much time on a small ocean vessel, serving alongside a rowdy, grizzled, hard-drinking man of the sea. This salty sailor serves as one of our man’s two best male friends; the other is a black man who first teaches our man the lessons of friendship before departing forever.

Our man wanders all around the world, his life brushing up against key historical moments of the 20th century. At some point he returns to his childhood home, and his mother dies. The man comes into considerable wealth through blind luck. Around this time, his lifelong love returns from her adventures, ready to commit to him. During their brief time together, they conceive a child. The couple part ways, due to the woman’s perceived inability to take care of the man. He does not raise the child through its early years but later makes an appearance in its life. The woman eventually dies in bed from illness. The man’s later years are hardly touched on, even though the movie has lavished much attention on his early and middle years.

The entire story dwells repeatedly on the theme of life’s uncertainty and, in contrast, on the notion of fate or coincidence. The film’s symbol for these themes is a small object seen hovering improbably in the air. A narrative frame scene punctuates the story, as does the main character’s drawling voice-over.

Acceptable Answers:
Forrest Gump; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.*
* Both movies were written by Eric Roth, a man who now owes me seventeen dollars.

yeah similar themes, concepts, or ideas are one thing but this borders on self plagurism.

i loved the two leads. love the camerawork (although it feels awfully by the book for fincher, who usually breaks ground) love the concept of the movie and i thought it was technically very well made.

im still willing to give it another shot, as i love cate blanchett, brad pitt, and david fincher.

but i think the screenplay deserves to go in the trash. im a little upset (and confounded) that fincher agreed to film it.

first impresion this is fincher's most lukewarm effort. i think even panic room was visually more inventive. it felt like award pandering at times and i kept waiting for him to make some of the riskier choices he is known for, but the movie just kept plodding along. in addition i thought the decision to avoid showing benjamin's last years felt like a copout and resulted in me losing any sort of emotional connection with the character i had developed up to that point.

 

[Episode29]

yeah he does that...





yeah similar themes, concepts, or ideas are one thing but this borders on self plagurism.

i loved the two leads. love the camerawork (although it feels awfully by the book for fincher, who usually breaks ground) love the concept of the movie and i thought it was technically very well made.

im still willing to give it another shot, as i love cate blanchett, brad pitt, and david fincher.

but i think the screenplay deserves to go in the trash. im a little upset (and confounded) that fincher agreed to film it.

first impresion this is fincher's most lukewarm effort. i think even panic room was visually more inventive. it felt like award pandering at times and i kept waiting for him to make some of the riskier choices he is known for, but the movie just kept plodding along. in addition i thought the decision to avoid showing benjamin's last years felt like a copout and resulted in me losing any sort of emotional connection with the character i had developed up to that point.

From what I've heard in Rumourville, Fincher agreed to direct Benjamin Button for the studio so as to secure financing for his true passion project Zodiac. Sort of a "We'll do you a favour, if you do one for us" deal. As BB had been on the studio's to-do list for well over a decade, I think they saw a chance at securing an A-list visionary talent and, making a smart choice, went for it. So while I think Fincher did his best to make the film work technically, I suspect his heart wasn't quite as much in it as some of his past projects.

 

[michephantom]

in addition i thought the decision to avoid showing benjamin's last years felt like a copout and resulted in me losing any sort of emotional connection with the character i had developed up to that point.

You wanted the movie to add onto the three hours that you apparently hated, just so you could see Benjamin traveling more? The flow of the story worked well without it, because the turning point was when Ben and daisy became a couple and had a baby. When his character leaves, I found my self eager to see if and how he would appear again, and what he would look like. Whenh he came back, and Daisy was taking care of him as a child and baby, I felt an emotional connection to him, feeling the sorrow of his dementia and daisy's sadness of taking care of her lover.

Maybe a book could have done it better, but that move allowed the movie to flow better...IMO.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

You wanted the movie to add onto the three hours that you apparently hated, just so you could see Benjamin traveling more? The flow of the story worked well without it, because the turning point was when Ben and daisy became a couple and had a baby. When his character leaves, I found my self eager to see if and how he would appear again, and what he would look like. Whenh he came back, and Daisy was taking care of him as a child and baby, I felt an emotional connection to him, feeling the sorrow of his dementia and daisy's sadness of taking care of her lover.

Maybe a book could have done it better, but that move allowed the movie to flow better...IMO.

Same here. Even when he dies as a baby in her arms Its the last time she sees him. The last hour really did it for me.

 

[The Sage]

Very powerful, one of the best movies I've ever seen.

 

[Prison Mike]

Great movie! I loved all of it!

 

[deathfromabove]

From what I've heard in Rumourville, Fincher agreed to direct Benjamin Button for the studio so as to secure financing for his true passion project Zodiac. Sort of a "We'll do you a favour, if you do one for us" deal. As BB had been on the studio's to-do list for well over a decade, I think they saw a chance at securing an A-list visionary talent and, making a smart choice, went for it. So while I think Fincher did his best to make the film work technically, I suspect his heart wasn't quite as much in it as some of his past projects.

i dont know if this is true but i wouldnt doubt it. i also know that fincher had some problems withthe studio during post.

You wanted the movie to add onto the three hours that you apparently hated, just so you could see Benjamin traveling more? The flow of the story worked well without it, because the turning point was when Ben and daisy became a couple and had a baby. When his character leaves, I found my self eager to see if and how he would appear again, and what he would look like. Whenh he came back, and Daisy was taking care of him as a child and baby, I felt an emotional connection to him, feeling the sorrow of his dementia and daisy's sadness of taking care of her lover.

Maybe a book could have done it better, but that move allowed the movie to flow better...IMO.

first of all i didnt hate the movie. whats with reading comprehension these days?

i didnt want to see benjamain travel more i wanted there to be some connection between the character brad pitt played for two plus hours and this random kid who shows up at the end, says next to nothing, and dies. it just felt as if benjamin suddenly dissapeared and we are left with no emotional resolution.

i really wanted to love this but i didnt.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Am I the only one concerned about the CGI use in the movie? Sure, it yielded amazing results, but is this really good for cinema? Are we going to use computers instead of make-up artists cause we can do it with CGI? Also, I can't help but think CGI did a lot of Pitt's acting for him, so are actors going to require less acting? He's even getting Oscar buzz for a performance aided by CGI. Is this good for cinema?

While the movie is great, I can't help but think perhaps we've gone too far here. I'm going to watch this again, but I don't think it was the year's best movie, like some are saying. Great, yes. One of the best, perhaps. The best, no. And I'm a big fan of Fincher's work.

 

[Prison Mike]

I thought the CGI use was fine. It didn't hinder Pitt's performance, IMO. I hope this movie gets a nod at least.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The CGI looked good, but I fear for what this means for the future of the industry in a way. CGI is already being used in unneccessary places, and this will only make CGI more widely spread, even when it is not the best way to go.