Fincher Hate?

Okay, I'll start up front by saying I shouldn't be the one to bring this topic up because my points will seem biased, but here I go anyway.

David Fincher is absolutely, without question, my favorite director. I'm a huge cinephile, watching, analyzing, and discussing films with my friends takes up a solid 50% of my life. I have found each installment of his work interesting and divinely crafted. I adore films like Fight Club and Seven, as they're two of my favorite films, but I've enjoyed his entire filmography. (I don't think Alien 3 is that great but seeing as even Fincher hates it and doesn't consider it to be his own, neither do I.) Movies like Panic Room and The Game, while entertaining and very well shot/crafted movies, don't quite measure up to the rest of his stuff.

HOWEVER

I see a lot of bashing of Fincher on these boards and kind of in general. There are several debates talking about how he shouldn't be considered a great director, how his films are bland, a LOT of negative views on his more recent film Gone Girl, and just a lot of negativity around a director that I thought had a decent amount of critical acclaim (I mean 3 of his films are in the Top 250, one of them in the top 10) so I didn't expect that. I'm not whining that one of my favorite directors is being talked poorly of, I really just wanna know the reasons as to some of the criticisms.

My Thoughts:
- I don't get the 'he needs to write/be more involved in his scripts in order to be considered great' argument. Directors direct, they should be judged on that merit. Spielberg hasn't written/co-written his most successful (critical or financial) films, but he's considered an all time great. Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, etc. He's a good director, so he relies on other people for the scripts. I don't consider him any less of a pioneer and a visionary (like him or not, he's a prolific director)

- I REALLY don't get the 'His films are bland' criticism. Like at all. Which is the thing I'm seeing most often. Fincher? Bland? I always thought he had a beautifully defined aesthetic, and like Zemeckis, knows when to blend CGI in order to make some really great stuff. Fight Club, one of the most stylistic films (be it for its characters, its shot composition, its editing, pretty much every aspect) ever made, bland? Seven is bland? Movies like Social Network are bland, with its use of great lighting, great editing, and cool use of montages? Fincher has a defined look, the only time where I think he's ever strayed from that is Zodiac, and I think it was to capture the realism of the story, seeing as it was based off real life, makes sense, but even then the film still looks immaculate, and Fincher went to painstaking detail in order to make everything as accurate as possible. His shots are long, he loves to use Wide shots, he does a phenomenal job whenever he films a conversation between two people, as his exchanges always take place both visually, and with dialogue. He also heavily uses shadows, and tends to light his films in one particular color to capture the mood. (Gone Girl is primarily blue, Fight Club changes from Green to Red, Seven is mostly Red and Orange, Panic Room is Grey and Blue, etc.) He captures atmosphere incredibly well, films like Seven and Zodiac are drenched in hopelessness and fear. But, bland? I don't really get that. Aesthetically I can always point him out. Watching the first two episodes of House of Cards and watching the rest was jarring for me, seeing as he only directed the first two, and I felt a little bit of the identity of the show was lost. While I like Spielberg (he's an easy example), I personally feel like his films, in terms of look (and sometimes content) are much more bland. With the exception of Schindler's list there's no film he's made that stands out to me as having a defined look. And as for content, Fincher has made some incredibly interesting films. Fight Club, back in '99, was hugely controversial, no film had been made that sent the same anti-consumerist messages and had been successful enough to hit the mainstream like it did. It was a film that made everyone who watched it re-evaluate themselves. It was a movie where its style created its substance. It showed why consumerism is bad, but the extreme opposite is even more so, t was about finding a middle ground to establish your own identity. Seven is a film thats entirely about how incredibly unfair life is. It shows that even if you're a good person who works for the common good, life can and will *beep* you over, no matter who you are, no matter what method of morality you subscribe to. Gone Girl came along and analyzed modern relationships more harshly and nihilistically than any film I've ever seen. All of his works, in one way or another, showcase the best, and the worst, in humanity, and his films often rely on the theme of finding a middle ground between two extremes in order to lead a morally right path. The argument may be made that the scripts/novels he bases his work on or uses are more responsible for that, but Fincher picks his scripts, he makes films out of material that resonates with him, lots of absurdist themes with two opposing sides, where the stories came from is inconsequential, he brought them to life through his films, and films are much more than standing behind a camera. He's a detail oriented guy, a guy who made Jake Gyllenhaal throw a notebook more than 80 times to get the take right. Calling him 'bland' may be subjective, but do his distinct visual style and occurring themes throughout his films, as well as his attention to detail, he has a definitive look and core to his work, which by my standards is anything but bland. It may mean he isn't as versatile as say, Spielberg, but neither was Kubrick, and I'd venture to say people like Nolan fall into that category as well.

- I really don't get the Gone Girl hate. And there certainly is a lot of it online. I notice that whenever something comes out with an initially positive response, there's always some form of weird, delayed, backlash, but I honestly don't get the harsh treatment this movie got. I personally, loved it, and while that doesn't mean anything, I think on a technical and analytical level, it was superb. It had a story with some great red-herrings and twists and turns that made it really succeed from a Mystery story point of view. However, when you look deeper, it's a deeply layered movie. Its all about how we can become/appear as something different for our partners, how it can completely slip by us that we may not truly be who our partner thinks we are, and vice versa. Not to mention the use of the 'unreliable narrator' trope is honestly very well implemented, great form of misdirection on the audience. I thought the acting, especially by Pike, was outstanding, even Tyler Perry of all people pulled in a great performance. And the film looks beautiful, the shot composition, the difference in color to show us visual distinction between the past and present, and the score was great. I know MY opinion doesn't matter, but the film is extremely received by critics and audiences, and was even nominated for an Oscar. (Unrelated note, but, come on, Academy, best adapted screenplay nomination? Where was it?) I just don't get it,

My goal here isn't to criticize people, or tell them they're wrong, or sound fussy, or anything like that. If anything I'd want Fincher detractors to comment and be able to tell me (and be civil whilst doing so) why it is exactly Fincher is not really all that popular with people as of late. Its not like he's all that popular or everywhere like other directors (Like poor Christopher Nolan whose so popular I think its just 'cool' to hate the poor guy) so its not due to over-exposure. Thoughts?