[The Social Network] Not really about Facebook

KoopahTroopah · October 2010

Directed by David Fincher (Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac)
Written by Aaron Sorkin (A few good men, Malice, West Wing)
Scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross
Staring Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Rooney Mara, Rashida Jones

A story about the founders of the social-networking website, Facebook.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB95KLmpLR4

Opens Tomorrow(October 1st)

www.500millionfriends.com

____________________________________

So did anyone see it yet? It's getting rave reviews on RT. like 9.3/10 out of 119 critics kinda rave.

Anything with this much potential can't be anything short of amazing.

P.S. Sorry if this is already an OP, but search option brought me no results.

Tomanta · October 2010

When I saw the first trailer I wasn't interested at all. Then I saw David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin are behind it and my interest perked.

The excellent reviews have helped, too, and I'll definitely be seeing this on Saturday.

Fencingsax · October 2010

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

KoopahTroopah · October 2010

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

Hahaha. Alright then.

Yeah I knew that Aaron and David were on it before I saw the trailer because I follow nin.com pretty extensively, and I read Trent's post about how he was scoring a David Fincher film. I instantly thought to myself, movie of the year. But then it mentioned that it was about facebook, and I was quick to retract my statement. However, I think the trailer is actually really good for the story. I've been told to see it by friends who went to a preview screening, I was just wondering what PA thought about it.

Nappuccino · October 2010

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

Like that has stopped something from being good?

TubularLuggage · October 2010

Apparently it's at 98% on metacritic, based on 32 reviews.

Holy shit.

Fencingsax · October 2010

Nappuccino wrote: »

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

Like that has stopped something from being good?

Well, I also have no money.

Tarranon · October 2010

More interesting to me than its 98% tomatometer rating is its average rating of 9.4/10

I can't think of a film with a higher average rating and that many reviews. Or hell, even a higher average rating.

I don't take much stock in reviewers other than to gauge general consensus, but that seems truly exceptional

Hoz · October 2010

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

How did you arrive at this assumption?

dlinfiniti · October 2010

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

do you watch alan moore based movies? where is this line drawn?

OremLK · October 2010

Tarranon wrote: »

More interesting to me than its 98% tomatometer rating is its average rating of 9.4/10

I can't think of a film with a higher average rating and that many reviews. Or hell, even a higher average rating.

I don't take much stock in reviewers other than to gauge general consensus, but that seems truly exceptional

It's very shocking to me. The premise couldn't be less appealing to me and I would have thought it'd be lightweight and either melodramatic or farcical. Hard to ignore reviews that good though.

Fencingsax · October 2010

dlinfiniti wrote: »

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

do you watch alan moore based movies? where is this line drawn?

Well, Alan Moore hates his movies, and he's not a douche, he's the wizard incarnation of Rage and Beard

Hoz wrote: »

Fencingsax wrote: »

I would go see this, but the author of the book seems like an unlikeable horrible douche.

How did you arrive at this assumption?

I've read some interviews with him. Like here. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2010/09/ben-mezrich-facebook-mark-zuckerberg-ben-mezrich.html

There's always sort of controversy around what I write. I'm an author [who has] a style that a lot of journalists don't like it. I write nonfiction in this thriller-esque style. I have all the facts; I research it. I have thousands of pages of court documents...I try to get inside my stories. I'm Hunter S. Thompson. Without the drugs and the guns.

This statement, for example.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/25/technology/founding_of_facebook.fortune/index.htm
Also,

He describes his work as a "dramatic narrative account," explaining that he reconstructed dialogue and even, to the extent that it moved the story forward, entire scenes.

He calls his books nonfiction, while making a whole bunch of shit up.

KoopahTroopah · October 2010

Well the movie may be based off that book, but Sorkin admitted in several interviews to basing a lot of the script off of Zuckerberg's actual blog. So it's probably based on the fictional novel with little tidbits of non fiction sprinkled throughout.

iguanacus · October 2010

Don't forget a healthy dose of Sorkin hatred of the internet.

KoopahTroopah · October 2010

iguanacus wrote: »

Don't forget a healthy dose of Sorkin hatred of the internet.

Yeah I don't get it. I like Sorkin's writing, and I love Fincher's directing. So I figured this was a home run. Add a little Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and it has to be love.

Loren Michael · October 2010

I'm so torn on this.

Great reviews, but, well... Jeff Jarvis put it well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-jarvis/the-social-network-review_b_741946.html

The movie violates privacy, smears reputations, makes shit up -- just what the internet is accused of doing, right? Oh, it's entertaining, in a dark way, as much as watching the pillorying of witches used to be, I suppose. For The Social Network, geeks and entrepreneurs are as mysterious and frightening as witches. Its writer, Aaron Sorkin, admits as much in New York Magazine. "He says unapologetically that he knows almost nothing about the 2010 iteration of Facebook, adding that his interest in computer-aided communication goes only as far as emailing his friends." Sorkin himself says, "I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling." Making shit up.

iguanacus · October 2010

Yeah, if you've never really watched any of Sorkin's tv work the man has a bit of a raging hate boner for the internet. West Wing, Studio 60 both had plot-lines dealing with the internet being the domain of crazy and/or dangerous people. SportsNite probably did too, but it's been a long time since I've watched that through.

Hoz · October 2010

Yeah, I never fully trust journalists to describe what has been said to them without quoting. So I cast a leery eye on "He says unapologetically that he knows almost nothing about the 2010 iteration of Facebook..."

And then this HuffPo blogger (the leper colony of the blogosphere) adding the quote about fidelity to storytelling as if Sorkin himself was referring to this instance specifically is just pampering his own point with misdirection. The movie is about the start-up of Facebook, so how is knowing about the 2010 iteration of Facebook relevant?

shryke · October 2010

It's funny. I first hear what this movie is about and I'm bored. But I remember watching that trailer a few months back and suddenly it looked really good. I don't know how.

Good trailer, that's all I'm saying. Personally, I blame the chorale version of Creep.

Anyway, good reviews mean this goes on my "To Watch" list.

Loren Michael · October 2010

Hoz wrote: »

Yeah, I never fully trust journalists to describe what has been said to them without quoting. So I cast a leery eye on "He says unapologetically that he knows almost nothing about the 2010 iteration of Facebook..."

And then this HuffPo blogger (the leper colony of the blogosphere) adding the quote about fidelity to storytelling as if Sorkin himself was referring to this instance specifically is just pampering his own point with misdirection. The movie is about the start-up of Facebook, so how is knowing about the 2010 iteration of Facebook relevant?

Eh. If he's making a good point (which is backed up by the New York mag piece) the source (eww, HuffPo!) doesn't matter.

Here's a post from TNR that says pretty much the same thing.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/77778/the-facebook-movie

Fartacus · October 2010

Looks awesome. Also I don't give a shit if it's truthful or not -- it's a goddamn movie and it doesn't profess to be much more than a very loose interpretation of the facts at best. It's not about providing a faithful account of events, it's about good storytelling and thematic delivery.

I'm really looking forward to it. Gonna see it tomorrow or saturday.

DoomSong8 · October 2010

I saw this last night, it is really astounding. The quality of the writing alone makes this must-see if you ask me. My favorite movie I've seen this year.

silence1186 · October 2010

I read several advance reviews of this film, and there were several comparisons between this and The Great Gatsby as works that captured the zeitgeist of their respective eras. That's fairly high praise, in my book.

dlinfiniti · October 2010

are they giving out cash at the movie theaters or something these days?
whats going on here, at this rate i'm gonna have to go see for myself

Hacksaw · October 2010

silence1186 wrote: »

I read several advance reviews of this film, and there were several comparisons between this and The Great Gatsby as works that captured the zeitgeist of their respective eras. That's fairly high praise, in my book.

A film-head buddy of mine who saw an advanced screening of this called it "The Citizen Kane of our generation."

DoomSong8 · October 2010

Hacksaw wrote: »

silence1186 wrote: »

I read several advance reviews of this film, and there were several comparisons between this and The Great Gatsby as works that captured the zeitgeist of their respective eras. That's fairly high praise, in my book.

A film-head buddy of mine who saw an advanced screening of this called it "The Citizen Kane of our generation."

That's been said by quite a few critics as well. There are certainly parallels.

Loren Michael · October 2010

Fartacus wrote: »

Looks awesome. Also I don't give a shit if it's truthful or not -- it's a goddamn movie and it doesn't profess to be much more than a very loose interpretation of the facts at best. It's not about providing a faithful account of events, it's about good storytelling and thematic delivery.

Yeah, but it's a fictional story about real people. That makes me kind of uncomfortable. I guess I might be a little hypocritical here, as I don't have a problem with the "W." film (in the abstract, I mean. I haven't seen it myself)... but something about this one rubs me really the wrong way.

I'm nto sure if this is the only reason I've got, but this bit from the TNR article I linked to kind of pisses me off:

"This isn’t the movie that’s going to tell you ‘Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook,’ or that he didn’t. But,” he [Sorkin] says, “we would sure love for those arguments to happen in the parking lot.”

So... Sorkin wants a discussion to occur about a real person, a real phenomenon, things that actually happened, but he wants it to happen based on a story that he made up, based on words that he put in characters' mouths.

I just... I dunno, the movie's obviously good. But this just seems wrong to me.

UnbreakableVow · October 2010

I'm glad this thread was made. When I checked at work at like 6 PM, there wasn't a thread and I was gonna do it when I got home

I want to see it so bad, but I really have to wonder how it'll do financially. Literally not a single person I know in real life wants to see it.

Hoz · October 2010

Well, now I have to see the film for the inevitable disappointment so I can bitch and rebuke those who like it so much.

Loren Michael wrote: »

"This isn’t the movie that’s going to tell you ‘Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook,’ or that he didn’t. But,” he [Sorkin] says, “we would sure love for those arguments to happen in the parking lot.”

So... Sorkin wants a discussion to occur about a real person, a real phenomenon, things that actually happened, but he wants it to happen based on a story that he made up, based on words that he put in characters' mouths.

I just... I dunno, the movie's obviously good. But this just seems wrong to me.

It's not wrong if you don't assume that he was making up facts about the controversy of the ownership itself.

I'm assuming he meant that they took liberties with the truth to make this movie be more than just about a ownership dispute of an internet website, but when it comes to the actual facts of the dispute he didn't tamper with them and the ethical and legal considerations are ambiguous enough that he hopes people watching talk about it.

I really hate this cut and copy style of analyzing what people say that bloggers do. Taking one sentence from one answer and sticking it together with another sentence from another answer is not how you figure out what someone is saying in an interview. It's bad enough that the journalist of the actual article probably did a hefty amount of this on his own, which is just standard journalism which is forgivable since they're the ones who are there on the ground and have the access, while the bloggers aren't and don't.

dlinfiniti · October 2010

such the unrelenting contrarian you are

Loren Michael · October 2010

Hoz wrote: »

Well, now I have to see the film for the inevitable disappointment so I can bitch and rebuke those who like it so much.

Loren Michael wrote: »

"This isn’t the movie that’s going to tell you ‘Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook,’ or that he didn’t. But,” he [Sorkin] says, “we would sure love for those arguments to happen in the parking lot.”

So... Sorkin wants a discussion to occur about a real person, a real phenomenon, things that actually happened, but he wants it to happen based on a story that he made up, based on words that he put in characters' mouths.

I just... I dunno, the movie's obviously good. But this just seems wrong to me.

It's not wrong if you don't assume that he was making up facts about the controversy of the ownership itself.

It's wrong if we assume he's insinuating motives on the part of the real people the movie is about. Really, it's hard to imagine that not occurring. Stories are constructed to make the one being told the story to feel a certain way, and I want my attitudes about Zuckerberg to be as informed by reality as possible, not filtered through the biases of some storyteller with a flair for the dramatic. I kind of want everyone to do this, it makes for a healthier, more honest appraisal of the world, I think.

UnbreakableVow · October 2010

Loren Michael wrote: »

Hoz wrote: »

Well, now I have to see the film for the inevitable disappointment so I can bitch and rebuke those who like it so much.

Loren Michael wrote: »

"This isn’t the movie that’s going to tell you ‘Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook,’ or that he didn’t. But,” he [Sorkin] says, “we would sure love for those arguments to happen in the parking lot.”

So... Sorkin wants a discussion to occur about a real person, a real phenomenon, things that actually happened, but he wants it to happen based on a story that he made up, based on words that he put in characters' mouths.

I just... I dunno, the movie's obviously good. But this just seems wrong to me.

It's not wrong if you don't assume that he was making up facts about the controversy of the ownership itself.

It's wrong if we assume he's insinuating motives on the part of the real people the movie is about. Really, it's hard to imagine that not occurring. Stories are constructed to make the one being told the story to feel a certain way, and I want my attitudes about Zuckerberg to be as informed by reality as possible, not filtered through the biases of some storyteller with a flair for the dramatic. I kind of want everyone to do this, it makes for a healthier, more honest appraisal of the world, I think.

I'm sure Fincher and Sorkin would have preferred it this way, but Zuckerburg refused to even speak to them

So fuck him, they took all the official court proceedings and such and filled in the blanks for the rest

If they made a compelling drama out of it, good for them

I'm sure they did

MalaysianShrew · October 2010

I just watched the trailer and all I can think is "Pirates of Silicon Valley"

I want to remake the trailer with "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" by Tears for Fears.

I am very skeptical of this. A movie about facebook by someone who doesn't like the internet combined with scenes of dramatized college parties. Still, the reviews have me intrigued.

EWom · October 2010

I"ve read nothing about this movie all I know is from the trailers on TV, and I keep going back and forth between "eh looks kinda dumb" and "hmm I think I need to see that". I think it depends entirely upon which trailer I see too... but this thread has convinced me to see it.

Loren Michael · October 2010

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

Loren Michael wrote: »

Hoz wrote: »

Well, now I have to see the film for the inevitable disappointment so I can bitch and rebuke those who like it so much.

Loren Michael wrote: »

"This isn’t the movie that’s going to tell you ‘Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook,’ or that he didn’t. But,” he [Sorkin] says, “we would sure love for those arguments to happen in the parking lot.”

So... Sorkin wants a discussion to occur about a real person, a real phenomenon, things that actually happened, but he wants it to happen based on a story that he made up, based on words that he put in characters' mouths.

I just... I dunno, the movie's obviously good. But this just seems wrong to me.

It's not wrong if you don't assume that he was making up facts about the controversy of the ownership itself.

It's wrong if we assume he's insinuating motives on the part of the real people the movie is about. Really, it's hard to imagine that not occurring. Stories are constructed to make the one being told the story to feel a certain way, and I want my attitudes about Zuckerberg to be as informed by reality as possible, not filtered through the biases of some storyteller with a flair for the dramatic. I kind of want everyone to do this, it makes for a healthier, more honest appraisal of the world, I think.

I'm sure Fincher and Sorkin would have preferred it this way, but Zuckerburg refused to even speak to them

So fuck him, they took all the official court proceedings and such and filled in the blanks for the rest

If they made a compelling drama out of it, good for them

I'm sure they did

Eh. I don't see why "fuck him" is a reasoned response. If someone neglects to give an interview, it's not really fair to either that person or the truth to just make stuff up.

UnbreakableVow · October 2010

But this isn't an interview

It's not even claiming to be a documentary

Fartacus · October 2010

Loren Michael wrote: »

Eh. I don't see why "fuck him" is a reasoned response. If someone neglects to give an interview, it's not really fair to either that person or the truth to just make stuff up.

but on the other hand, who cares?

I mean, it just seems like some really unnecessary hand-wringing.

whether you see it or not will not have any kind of moral implication read into it by anyone counting the cash

Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire and by most public accounts, sort of a dick

it just seems sort of silly to be analyzing this

Variable · October 2010

I am incredibly excited to see this purely because of fincher, let alone all the other good stuff.

Loren Michael · October 2010

UnbreakableVow wrote: »

But this isn't an interview

It's not even claiming to be a documentary

Sure. But Sorkin wants people to, again, have a discussion about real-world, current day events based on a fictionalized account, where he gets to spin the audience's reaction to the individual characters. I don't think that's fair to the people involved and I don't think it's possible to do the truth justice in that context.

Loren Michael · October 2010

Fartacus wrote: »

Loren Michael wrote: »

Eh. I don't see why "fuck him" is a reasoned response. If someone neglects to give an interview, it's not really fair to either that person or the truth to just make stuff up.

but on the other hand, who cares?

I mean, it just seems like some really unnecessary hand-wringing.

whether you see it or not will not have any kind of moral implication read into it by anyone counting the cash

Mark Zuckerberg is a billionaire and by most public accounts, sort of a dick

it just seems sort of silly to be analyzing this

I guess, maybe. I'm not sure why I'm more concerned about this than, say, the W. movie, as my complaints about the truth apply equally to that, and I think they're pretty valid overall.

In regards to Zuckerberg being a dick, that's the impression I have about him as well, as gleaned from various interviews and such that I've read featuring him, but at the same time, I don't think he's exceptionally so (or at least, I have no reason to believe he's worse than anyone else his age, at the time the plainly dickish remarks were said). I haven't seen this movie, but if it paints him as being a chronically dickish person--IIRC there's a quote in teh movie by some girl about him having this quality--that's painting him in an undeserved negative light, and it's coloring the public's perception of him and his business with fiction.

Being a billionaire doesn't really justify people engaging in (essentially) slander against you.

Bloods End · October 2010

Trent Reznor

TRENT REZNOR

Penny Arcade

[The Social Network] Not really about Facebook

Posts