FIRST LOOK

First Look: Ben Affleck in David Fincher's Next Adaptation 'Gone Girl'

by
December 27, 2013
Source: The Playlist

Ben Affleck Gone Girl

Take a good look - is this man a killer? One of the next big roles for Ben Affleck before he starts playing Batman is the lead in the next David Fincher movie, titled Gone Girl, adapted from Gillian Flynn's novel about a wife who goes missing on the fifth wedding anniversary. Affleck stars as the husband, along with Rosamund Pike as his wife and a cast including Neil Patrick Harris, Casey Wilson, Scoot McNairy and Tyler Perry. The first look shot just shows Affleck addressing a crowd at a mic, with a missing persons photo in the background. It's still a good early tease for the next Fincher mystery movie due out next year.

Here's the first look shot showing Ben Affleck in David Fincher's Gone Girl, first discovered via The Playlist:

Gone Girl Ben Affleck First Look

Gone Girl, being directed by David Fincher (of Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Zodiac, Panic Room, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo previously), is an adaptation of Gillian Flynn's best-selling novel of the same name. In a story primarily told in flashbacks, Rosamund Pike plays a wife who goes missing on her fifth wedding anniversary, and her husband (Affleck) becomes the prime suspect in her disappearance. Fincher is currently filming in Missouri utilizing the new 6K Red Dragon digital camera. 20th Century Fox tentatively has Fincher's Gone Girl scheduled for release on October 3rd, 2014 next fall. This is definitely at the top of our most anticipated next year. Stay tuned.

Find more posts in First Look, Hype, Photos

Discover more on ZergNet:

  • DAVIDPD
    6K Red Dragon!? Sounds crunchy!
    • Chris Groves
      Indeed, it seemed like just the other day the Red Epic(which I think filmed at 4K?) was the new high standard with digital cameras...and now we have a 6K Red Dragon....that's awesome. The rate the digital cameras continue to improve is quite staggering. I don't think there is any question of film being obsolete within the decade.
      • Bo
        And that's a great pity because a digital image will never, ever match the clearity of a film image. It's impossible and any one with a hightened sense of visual awareness knows it. Look, most people go see junk movies that are popular now in America and wouldn't know a Van Gogh painting from a Tijuana Felt painting. So they have no idea of the differences in images and for that matter could care less. Great pity as I've enjoyed the great films shot on film for a very long time and can immediately tell the difference when I see a digital film. And always will be able to. It's the nature of the beast. You can clone and it can look close, but it will never match the best or original. There is a difference and always will be no matter how far digital progresses. And that be a fact! lol...
        • Chris Groves
          "a digital image will never, ever match the clearity of a film image. It's impossible" That might be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Dynamic range, clarity, crispness and resolution are constantly improving for digital cameras. When 10, 20, and 30K cameras exist, there will be no way film matches it. Every aspect that film currently has up on digital is shrinking by the year....and the vast majority of people couldn't even tell you whether a movie like Pacific Rim was shot on film or digitally. To say a digital image will never ever match film, as if it's some fact that will never change, is just close minded.
          • Bo
            Well, closed-minded is certainly something I've never been accused of before, but so be it. There's no doubt digital is easier to work with, faster, cheaper and all that. Still, I'm not budging. I like film and always will. I don't care for Taratino's films, but I'm with him when he says he'll quit before he ever shots digitally. K. Reeves good doc on all this is worth a viewing. A few of the real great DP's interviewed hold my views, so perhaps you'd be better off making your argument with them as they are the masters. I do question why someone such as yourself are so emotionally involved in wanting film to disappear and have digital rule. What's with that? You show me a digital camera now, right now, or even in the near future that can shot a piece to look like Lawrence of Arabia and I'll consider 'opening my mind' a bit more. Look at M. Mann's ugly digitally shot Tom Cruise film Collateral compared to the beautifully shot on film Last of the Mohicans and I rest my case. Stop this what it will look like in the future; the future doesn't exist. It's now, right now and what we've seen so far. Anyway, none of this matters. It's more the type of films, which are just movies now, that are being made. It doesn't make a dif what you shoot them on as the are all pretty much shallow light weight junk. I wonder what your top five movies are. That would tell me a lot about your intelligence in regards to movies you deem great. Eh? And I'll give you this...I was being a bit ridiculous in stating digital will never match film as how the hell can I know that. Okay? It just hasn't yet and as you can tell, I have serious doubts it ever will.
          • Chris Groves
            Emotion has nothing to do with it, Film is still the best way to currently shoot. But say, 10 years ago...the difference between the best looking film image and the best looking digital image was maybe like the difference between 10 and 3, qualitatively. But now, it's more like 10 to 7-8, and many barely notice. In a few years, maybe already with this 6K Red Dragon, it might be more like comparing 10 to 9. Emotion has nothing to do with it, I'm a realist. To say digital will never ever match film is ridiculous unless you are working on a short timeline. Does digital currently match film? No, but it is pretty damn close. In 5 years? It will be even closer, if not on par. In 10 years, it WILL have at least matched it, at minimum. To say "digital will never match film" is an absolutist point of view. In 30 years you think that will be the case? When we are filming in like 40K? Maybe more? The 'grain and texture' argument won't be worth anything then. It's not opinion, it's not some jaded stance, I love film as much as anyone(and would love to see entire films shot at 65mm, frankly)...it is just the cold hard reality. When Wally Pfister, an avid film-over-digital proponent, appears in Side By Side(an amazing doc on the film to digital transition) saying that he believes he and Nolan will be working digitally within 10 years...that tells you something.
          • Bo
            Thanks for your intelligent response, Chris. I'm enjoying trading points of view with you. Tough to argue with you points...so I won't...lol...however, as I was reading, and enjoying your writings, it was interesting to note that it all was centered on 'comparing' digital to....film. Just that alone is my point. Digital attempting to look as good as film. Perhaps you're right and it will one day 'look as good' as film, but my abusud statement stands in that it will 'never look' like film. Can we agree on that? Hell, your point is well taken so digital might even come to look better than film, but I believe will never satisfy my tastes. Again, it will never look 'like' film. That is impossible. Perhaps that is my problem. It's purely aesthete, I realize...but there you have it. I'm okay with that. Seeing how I am 67 and have studied and been involved in film since my early 20's I doubt I'll be around to see digital come to what you expect it might. I did work on Apocalypse Now and was able to watch the great Vittorio Storaro and his crew light and shoot that film. Perhaps I've been spoiled and am closed-minded and resisting the new technology as you say. So be it. Still, money and corporate pressure to keep costs down etc. play a hand in the digital intrusion into cinema and I'm troubled by that as well as I believe it affects the so-calld artists who make movies and the new generations coming. We can sure agree on one thing...I too wish all films were shot on 65mm. But they are not, alas. And can we even call movies shot digitally films? They aren't you know. Not really. Just movies will have to do, eh?
          • Chris Groves
            Sure, it likely won't look exactly the same as film(meaning, digital imagery isn't based on a grain structure) but I would say that it will certainly look BETTER than film, to be honest. I think significant gains in clarity and resolution would trump the sort of 'texture' of film...for me personally, anyway. A lot of the preference is certainly subjective and about aesthetic preference...I was merely speaking in terms of the raw quality/detail of an image. I once heard that 35mm film is like the equivalent of 8K imagery...so until Digital is shooting at 8K, then I can see how it lags behind film slightly. But when the digital standard is raised to, say, 16K...the 'texture' argument will be purely aesthetic, and the 'film offers more image detail' argument won't be there. But yes, I'd love to see one final, huge blockbuster filmed entirely on 65mm film...it would truly be something to behold. I was hoping Nolan would shoot only in IMAX 70mm and 65mm for Interstellar, not using any 35mm...but I didn't get my wish.
          • Bo
            Interesting. I appreciate your knowledge of all the digital specifics...thanks. I wish I liked Nolan's work as he is one of the last to shoot on film, alas, I just don't like his movies. Batman...silly...Inception...simplistic...It just seems to me a lot of his work is based on gimmicks starting with Momento...if it wasn't told backwards it would be a pretty boring and trite story. It was just all gimmick. Oh, bye the bye Chris. In regards to your 'out of touch' regarding Ridley Scott that I commented to on that thread. I just IMDB his work and he's been shooting digitally for a few years now. Starting with Prometheus...then The Counselor (which I had trouble with the photography, especially the outside locations) and now the Moses pic. When he started shooting digitally...perhaps that's when he started falling out of touch? lol...sorry, couldn't resist. But you might be right about him falling out of touch...ok...you're right again..lol..
      • DAVIDPD
        Another interesting point, if you follow the trends in digital photography, we are soon approaching a point when the digital sensors are so good that the it will be the glass in the lenses that halts further improvements in clarity. Yes, that means those minute imperfections in the glass will be the thing keeping is from better pictures. Crazy!? Right?
  • Charlie Hard
    I was excited to see this movie until I saw Tyler Perry's name, they seriously couldn't have picked any other actor? Tyler Perry in a David Fincher movie....I couldn't even stand his acting in Cross. What are they even thinking. What is Fincher even thinking, I just hope it's not going to be another one of his flops. He has gone to darn mainstream over the years his unique style has been lost. Now anyone can be a Fincher even that guy from across the street. Well still gonna check it out.
    • Chris Groves
      whine whine whine whine whine. You know, Tyler Perry had a minor role in JJ Abrams Star Trek film...must have ruined the whole fucking movie huh? No wait, no it didn't. He was perfectly fine in that appearance. The reality is that Perry was listed here after Affleck, Pike, Harris, Wilson, and McNairy. AT BEST he is a member of an ensemble cast, but more likely he will just be a supporting role. I understand the hate for his movies, I hate them too...but it's not like this is a damn Tyler Perry production written, directed by, and starring Tyler Perry. He is simply acting in a supporting role. Considering that the Director is THE David Fincher and the star of the film is Ben Affleck....I think the movie is in damn good shape. Did you damn Inglourious Basterds to hell because Mike Meyers was in the cast?
      • Charlie Hard
        Calm the heck down. I simply suggested they could have picked a better damn actor for a role in a movie like this supporting or not. How do you even know it's a small supporting role like his role in Star Trek which was like about 30 seconds and all it was just more of a speaking role not a physical moving role which there is difference between that. Jesus it's sounds like everyone is going crazy. When the hell did I even mention Inglourious Basterds or Mike Myers* not Meyers which just goes to show how fast you typed this without even thinking. At least he is a great actor who has proved himself in some decent roles. I am saying again, calm down. No need to swear or sound violent we are all people in here. I love Fincher as a director but when I mentioned that above I meant his earlier films had a more unique style in my own opinion. I mean there is a difference between Se7en and his other films that he has made later on. Like I even said I will still check this movie out.
        • Ehsan Davodi
          Charlie even Justin Timberlake did acceptable job in Fincher works
          • Charlie Hard
            Go fuck yourself
          • Ehsan Davodi
            Alex please dont delete his comment. Its democracy and this dude have many liberal ideas. But charlie , believe me man , you are everything but MOVIEGOER
          • Charlie Hard
            Oh good one very funny guys, I am laughing so hard. Very funny nice job on the impersonator account whoever it was. Good job I am really proud of whoever did it. There definitely needs to be more than one me around here so go ahead and why not make more! Ahahaha. I am not a moviegoer your right about that even though you didn't reply to me. I am a simple minded idiot with the worst opinions on films ever. Everyone hates me wah wah wah wah. I love this place enough to forgive it for it's flaws and effortless humor.
          • Ehsan Davodi
            Wrong I'm not hate you. Why should i? I like guys who have opposite ideas. Without wrong , right means nothing and no one can say who say wrong or right. Then just say your opinion man. Go On dude.
          • Charlie Hard
            Was it you that made the fake impersonator account against me? No no I really want to find out be honest. Still confused? How about you click the name of the good ole swearing Charlie's account above and then click mine. Just be honest with me cause It's a great joke. ANYONE who had to go through all the effort just to make another account with my name on it and want's to go around trolling me on here must be rewarded! Or did you just do it to see me tick like I am right now? Be honest with me.
          • Ehsan Davodi
            What are you talking about man? I have more busy for this childish act. Are you kidding me? Charlie I'm your friend. No , definitely that's not me dude,
        • Bo
          I'm having a good laugh at your expense, Charlie. I find your take on films more in line with mine and for someone to call you a moron is like a 1st grade teacher calling a college professor the same. In other words perhaps a moron was calling you one. Funny stuff. Keep up offering your opinions, Charlie. I find them most intelligent and above the childish unaware opinions that I mostly read here.
        • Mitch Cumstein
          Funny isn't it, how worked up people get. If we are going to type anything on here better make sure it is something Chris Groves agrees with. After all, he does know everything there is to know about making and casting movies and nobody else has a right to express their own opinions except him.
          • Chris Groves
            I have no problem with a well articulated opinion. Whining is something else. I'm not "worked up" at all, but you seem to be. My tolerance for blatant ignorance is pretty low, oh well.
    • Christopher Roberts
      The character Perry is playing is a lawyer and in the book he only had a few scenes. Strangely, in the book he was a white man married to a black woman.
    • Micheal Kinane
      Another moronic post from the biggest moron here
    • Ehsan Davodi
      Charlie you don't like Nolan , but can you believe who act in ned kelly or knights tale , Can play MASTERFULLY as joker? Dude , i think some directors work precisely on their materials. They make movies because that's in their blood. Flincher is one of them. Then don't worry dude.
    • Bo
      I totally agree with what you posted. Tyler Perry? In a Fincher film? Heck, in any film for that matter. But you are right, Fincher seems to have really gone mainstream with the likes of this material, which was unreadable in book form, and having Affleck and Perry in the cast. His unique style has really been lost. You go ahead and check it out...I'll take a pass!
  • Chris Groves
    Fincher and Affleck working together? Sounds damn good to me.
  • Xerxexx
    Nice. Affleck and Fincher seems like a great combination.
  • cuckoozey
    Although the book was mediocre with highly unlikable characters, I have confidence Fincher will improve upon all it's shortcomings and bring us another great film.
    • Bo
      I agree regarding the book; I couldn't get thru it as I found it badly written and uninteresting. Same with the writer's Dark Places that Charlize Teron has just starred in the movie version. Having said that the source material is not worthy I wondered why Fincher did this. And Ben Affleck? He a light weight with no substance so I find all this pretty lame. Fincher is dark and gritty a la Seven and his version of Dragoon Tattoo...Affleck is Batman? Come on. Argo was a crowd pleasing rah rah America bunch of flag waving nonsense. Guess Fincher is looking for a hit...we'll see, but I doubt this film will be any good.
  • Nielsen700
    Fincher really is one of our best directors. Too bad the Girl with a Dragon Tattoo remake doesn't seem to be getting sequel. Really dug it.
    • Micheal Kinane
      Awesome movie
    • Bo
      Fincher is one of the good ones, I agree. I liked his Dragon Tattoo film, but it just wasn't as good as the original Swedish version with Noomie Repace; and I really like Rooney Mara and would like to see the next one with her. Still, the original film was so good on all levels of cinematic acuman it was impossible to top. It was just superior filmmaking on all levels and Fincher, though he made a good movie, did not make a better one. Check out the original film if you haven't seen it and you'll see what I mean.
      • Nielsen700
        I've seen the original, and its sequels. And I disagree with the original being better than the remake, even though they're very close to one another. My problem with the original trilogy is more the two sequels. They felt like cheap made-for-TV films. I think if Fincher got a crack at it he could make one of the great trilogies of our time.
        • Bo
          Well said. And I was only talking about the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. The other two films were made for TV and were not directed by the director of the first film. And that's a big difference. But I still think the original is better than Fincher's film. Plus, and this is a biggie for me, it was shot on film and looked much better than Fincher's which was shot digitally. Tough to argue this as they both were really good films. I also liked the original cast a lot more as they were not 'stars'; just very good actors.
  • Brian Ricci
    Tyler Perry was in Star Trek?
    • Chris Groves
      Yep. He was over-seeing the hearing/review where Kirk was accused of tampering with the Kobayashi Maru. "In Academic vernacular, you cheated."
  • Ehsan Davodi
    Crime Lord against Crime Master Who must directs Who? Fincher or Affleck
  • Terry Craig
    wow, that cast isn't doing it for me at all (affleck, pike, harris, perry, ugh), but hey, it's fincher and it's a mystery! I hope it will be kinda like Spoorloos (aka The Vanishing)
    • Charlie Hard
      Perry is a douche.
  • Dick Bigger
    My favorite Ben Affleck was when he was on South Park and he found his parents after Kenny and Cartman put that fake ad on the milk cartons.
  • http://www.jimmylove.com/ Jimmy Love
    Aflac
  • Rock n Rollllll
    Even Bafleck cant mess up a David Fincher movie. This should be good, cant wait. Hopefully David will bring in Trent from NIN again to do the music composition.

FEATURED POSTS

GET MORE NEWS

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly
Subscribe to me on YouTube for interviews 

POPULAR COMMENTS

NEWEST PODCAST

FACEBOOK + LINKS