Because Fincher is a carbon copy of Spielberg
Except minus the sentimentalism and plus more needless/gratuitous special effects. If there is anything great about Spielberg its that he uses CG only when needed (Indy 4 not counted) and nearly always makes sure they do not call attention to themselves (again, Indy 4 not counted.)
i was being sarcastic.
How is the director of fight club and seven even compare to the director of jaws and raiders fo the lost ark? Please tell me, i just can't see why.
also, wasn't war of the worlds very effects heavy, or did they actually create loads of giant walking tripods and put veins all over the earth?
Fincher has been compared to Spielberg because he is like the modern extension. Working with amazing visual effects to create intense and well-crafted stories. Like Fincher and his friends are taking the mantle from Spielberg. Obviously their films and styles are completely different.
And regarding the effects. Even in War of the Worlds the effects were out of necessity and most of the effects are incredibly well integrated to the point where until you just mentioned it I hadn't even considered that the veins might be computer animated.
Honostly, I can't see it. Yeah, Fincher has special effects in his movies, but who doesn't these days? Looking at the larger themes in their work they're pretty different, I can't say I can really picture Spielberg ending a movie with a head in a box. If I was picking a successor to Spilberg I'd probably name Peter Jackson (special effects driven blockbusters loved by critics and audiences alike), Guillermo del Toro (fairy tales for adults with a lot of effects), or maybe Frank Darabont.
Also, I've got to say I'm pretty shocked that so many people are putting Hayao Miyazaki at the very top of their lists. I've got nothing against the guy... but that seems to be a bit much. Anyone want to explain the extreme apeal.