I have difficulty trying to see David Fincher as a good fit for "World War Z 2," but Fincher has surprised us more than once in his career. This film, to me, harkens me back to his directing debut: Alien 3. It's a similar genre which relies on a lot of jump scares. I sure hope Fincher gives us something fresh and inventive, but what's the potential for that to happen here? Fincher has stated in the past that he wants to make movies that a big audience will go to see, he wants his movies seen NOT forgotten. With that in mind, I completely understand why he would choose such a project, the original Z, directed by Marc Foster, was plagued with reshoots and controversy, but it was a mega-blockbuster.
Let's just make sure Fincher gets total creative control here. This would be Fincher's first all-out blockbuster, although, I guess, you could make a case for "Alien 3" as well. Fincher hasn't directed a film since 2014's "Gone Girl." At some point he was supposed to direct Ben Affleck in a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's "Strangers on A Train," but IMDB doesn't have that project listed anymore. Scrapped? Who knows. Fincher will be collaborating with Brad Pitt for the fourth time with this "World War Z" sequel.
In the meantime, as his next movie is a sequel to a lucrative disaster film, Fincher tells Financial Times that Hollywood movies these days are all about "saving the world from destruction," ha the irony:
“Look, many people at studios are still fighting the good fight. There are executives there who are friends of mine. But if you want to make studio movies, you stay in their lanes, which are romantic comedy, affliction Oscar bait, Spandex summer, superhero tentpole, moderately budgeted sequel,” Fincher stated candidly."
“The cinema isn’t dead. It just does something different. The place is still filled with kids, it’s just they’re all on their phones. It’s a social event like a bonfire, and the movie is the bonfire. It’s why people gather but it’s not actually there to be looked at,” Fincher said. “Because the bonfire is always the same.”