Found this.

http://movieweb.com/news/news.php?id=6526

Still on negotiations but should be interesting on the subject on the famed serial killer.

I'm so there! I love Fincher's movies...and this is a fascinating topic!

Will this be Fincher's next project?

Hell yeah! Can't wait for this. Nobody does the serial killer thing better than Fincher! Thanks for the link Dom!

I'll cross my fingers for this one.

Sounds promising as long as they don't call it "EI8HT".

Sounds promising.

despite having a strong visual signature, Fincher strikes me as the sort of director that is only as good as the script he's working from. and this one, i'm sorry to say, is being adapted by the writer of The Rundown, Basic and Darkness Falls.

Well, I think Fincher can elevate a bad script to a watchable movie. But, obviously not a masterpiece if the writing isn't there to back it up. And, while I enjoy the Rundown, that writer is not a good writer and Basic and Darkness Falls are two terribly written movies.

But, glad to see Fincher is doing something. More than likely I'd imagine the script will be rewritten left and right anyway. Though I was hoping he'd get his Black Dahlia or Rendevous with Rama projects off the ground.

I don't know, I think Fincher will be able to make something from this. Highly interesting topic, great director. I'm there.

Didn't I hear Brian DePalma was doing the Black Dahlia flick?

I agree completely, but that could be said about any director. But yeah, Finch can raise the quality of any script. In any other person's hands, Panic Room would have been an incoherent, trashy piece of straight-to-video crap. Yeah, I know that's an easy setup for some of you, but the script did have a lot of garbage in it.

That's what I heard, too. Apparently it has a huge emotional resonance for DePalma.

Fincher can direct really crappy scripts (Panic Room) into just-as-crappy movies (Panic Room) and trick everyone into thinking it was a good movie by releasing a 3-disc must-have DVD (Panic Room).

They shouldn't need any silly title tricks for this premise. In it's day it was a huge story over the course of several years. This guy was the real deal, not some movie character.

surely an oversight soon to be rectified by Fincher and company.

Eh, I humbly disagree. The script is rather hohum, but Fincher's direction in terms of mood and setting the scene, with his creative usage of camera and lighting, made for an entertaining thriller.

Anyway, anything to get Fincher making another movie. He's got good chops and I'm happy to see him make anything. Every one of his films has been, at the very least, worth watching.

something tells me andrew kevin walker will have his (uncredited) hands on this at some point, which i personally feel would help...

What directors, then, aren't only as good as the script they're working from?

the sort of filmmaker many would call writer/directors, maybe auteurs (although I hate that word). they are rare in the studio system. i'm talking about kieslowski, tarkovsky, kiarostami, leigh, dardenne, cassavettes, etc. these are names of filmmakers that have built their projects from the ground up. they are able to transcend even the most seemingly basic, uninspired story (I recommend you see 'Rosetta' for the most compelling film about simply trying to find and keep a job you'll ever see). so when i say a certain director is only as good as the script he's given, i mean to say that at best he is a talented storyteller but will likely never take a film deeper than the story given to him to tell. there are others capable of much more.

Hmmm... I don't see this happening, for two reasons.

David Fincher is an artist-as-director, really. He doesn't seem to make films just for money; he seems to genuinely appreciate the story and concept. As such, I don't think he'd throw himself back into another serial killer flick, at least not in such a hurry. I realize Se7en was many years ago, but he's only made three films since.

There's also the fact that Fincher's name has been attached to four different flicks I can think of since Panic Room, none of which have materialized, or they have been taken over by other directors.

I disagree simply on the issue that, while most auteurs I would say use film to explore things more than just a visual and atmospheric asthetic, sometimes those elements can make for compelling cinema. Panic Room was very much a visual and tonal exercise, a hitchockian play of camera moves and lighting and atmosphere. There's not much deeper meaning to it, but to say deeper thought and philosophical rumblings are the only things that define an artist would be, in my opinion, limiting. Fincher can take a mediocre screenplay and make a film that's entertaining, that's visually unique and creative, that's visceral and moving. There may not be anything deep about it from a character or philosophical standpoint, but you can elevate material in other ways, and with regards to films like The Game and Panic Room, that's exactly what he does do. He brings his exceptional style and ability to create a convincing sense of tension, and elevates a mediocre story into something that's an effective, thrilling, involving piece. Perhaps not superb and deep art, but definately better than your run of the mill piece o junk.

One might disagree, but that's what I see in him. Fincher's talents lie in storytelling and a strong visual style. I think there's something to be said in a talent for the visual aesthetic, and in creating mood and atmosphere, something with which Fincher excels with. He doesn't always do it with rich characterizations or complex dramatics, but moreso with style and atmosphere and visuals. Some dismiss that, and will just say anybody can do that. But I disagree and think there's definately something to be admired in his skills. While he's never been an artist that has really moved me on more humanistic levels, I don't dismiss someone for not necessarily being that type of director. What he does he does very well, and I look forward to each of his projects because of it.

i think that's essentially what i said. he's a very capable and talented storyteller, but he doesn't strive to go much deeper than a visceral level. personally, not going deeper is what i'd define as "limiting". i still can enjoy the entertainment value of his work, while finding more meaningful cinema (to me) elsewhere.