It's like that segment of the internet which writes fanfiction... about real people. So they can share fantasies about their favorite singers hooking up. And things of that nature. It's kind of, for lack of a better term, icky.
You could argue that this is worse too because it's inevitable that many people will misinterpret it as factual, while nobody would misinterpret the icky fanfiction that way.
OremLK on
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
I am incredibly excited to see this purely because of fincher, let alone all the other good stuff.
i am interested in sorkins hate boner for the web though.
Jokerman on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
I think the difference with W. is that 1) everyone already knows about his incompetence and idiocy, 2) The President of the United States does not have the same expectation of privacy, and 3) it's Oliver Stone, nobody cares.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
The movie is supposed to have a large focus on the characters that sprout facebook, and not facebook itself. I think the movie was written with the intention of using any social network, facebook just happened to fit it best. The fact that some people call it the facebook movie, is a pretty big stereotype and would explain why half of the world wouldn't want to see it.
But the reviews speak for themselves, the talent is definitely there, I'm sure it's great, and I'll probably end up seeing it today.
...Oh yeah, TRENT FUCKING REZNOR.
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.
Same, but then again Fight Club didn't open that well in theaters either, and we all know how great that movie is.
I will 100% confess the trailer was really great for this, which perked my interest, but I loathe Facebook which turned me off. However now I hear it's being done by all these people whose work I genuinely enjoy, and is raking in amazing reviews? I may have to reconsider and go see it.
From what Sorkin said on Colbert last night, the movie tries to tell all versions of the story. If that is the case then the movie doesn't even pretend to be a factual account... since the facts aren't known for sure.
Tomanta on
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I will 100% confess the trailer was really great for this, which perked my interest, but I loathe Facebook which turned me off. However now I hear it's being done by all these people whose work I genuinely enjoy, and is raking in amazing reviews? I may have to reconsider and go see it.
However, I think that ultimately this may be the best to come of this film:
There's a parody for Twitter too. What else can we expect from the internet?
From what Sorkin said on Colbert last night, the movie tries to tell all versions of the story. If that is the case then the movie doesn't even pretend to be a factual account... since the facts aren't known for sure.
Yeah there's supposed to be a lot of jump cuts that go from story to story, but it's not made to be confusing. It's just done so that it shows everyone's side.
I think the difference with W. is that 1) everyone already knows about his incompetence and idiocy, 2) The President of the United States does not have the same expectation of privacy, and 3) it's Oliver Stone, nobody cares.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
But guess what? If you dont clear the air yourself, then we only have to go by what we know, and what I know so far is that Jeff Zuckerberg is an egotistical douche who believes privacy is a dead construct and he should be able to sell any information he wants to an advertiser.
I think the difference with W. is that 1) everyone already knows about his incompetence and idiocy, 2) The President of the United States does not have the same expectation of privacy, and 3) it's Oliver Stone, nobody cares.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
I'm in agreement with all this. Zuckerberg, for all his flaws, seems like the victim of this movie to me. I get the impression that people are overlooking this because of his wealth or because they don't like him.
I was going to respond to Loren's posts, and then I remembered that that would mean we'd be having a conversation about a movie-unseen. And, ew? Yes.
loren also hated zombieland
so he is basically the devil
just in regards to film
whaaaaaaaaaaaa
Zombieland was great
Although I am biased as the director is my friend's brother
This is off topic, but Zombieland had long stretches of movie that had no zombies, and were absolutely fucking boring. And the ending was cliche and annoying. OTOH, it had one of the single funniest cameogags I've ever seen. I dunno, it was okay mostly, hilarious occasionally, with some serious, serious flaws in regards to pacing and finishing.
EDIT: I went away from the movie feeling annoyed, mostly though. I was all, "I thought that was supposed to be a movie with some goddamn zombies in i!"
I think the difference with W. is that 1) everyone already knows about his incompetence and idiocy, 2) The President of the United States does not have the same expectation of privacy, and 3) it's Oliver Stone, nobody cares.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
But guess what? If you dont clear the air yourself, then we only have to go by what we know, and what I know so far is that Jeff Zuckerberg is an egotistical douche who believes privacy is a dead construct and he should be able to sell any information he wants to an advertiser.
Yep, why defend the privacy of someone who wants nothing more than to own yours? He's already been exposed as quite hypocritical at following his own information sharing "beliefs". That's not even hearsay if you read his statements on privacy, and also lookup the history of his locked down FB account. He'll do and say anything for money, and has no real morals beyond that. I can't imagine this film portraying Zuck as even half as bad as he really is.
If anyone has watched the movie, can you let us know if the movie shows Zuck stealing email passwords from his enemies and calling his users "dumb fucks"?
If anyone has watched the movie, can you let us know if the movie shows Zuck stealing email passwords from his enemies and calling his users "dumb fucks"?
Nope.
DoomSong8 on
XBL:Gravity MDPSN:Gravity1204 Steam:Gravity1204
0
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I think the difference with W. is that 1) everyone already knows about his incompetence and idiocy, 2) The President of the United States does not have the same expectation of privacy, and 3) it's Oliver Stone, nobody cares.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
But guess what? If you dont clear the air yourself, then we only have to go by what we know, and what I know so far is that Jeff Zuckerberg is an egotistical douche who believes privacy is a dead construct and he should be able to sell any information he wants to an advertiser.
Yep, why defend the privacy of someone who wants nothing more than to own yours? He's already been exposed as quite hypocritical at following his own information sharing "beliefs". That's not even hearsay if you read his statements on privacy, and also lookup the history of his locked down FB account. He'll do and say anything for money, and has no real morals beyond that. I can't imagine this film portraying Zuck as even half as bad as he really is.
If anyone has watched the movie, can you let us know if the movie shows Zuck stealing email passwords from his enemies and calling his users "dumb fucks"?
I'm less concerned about privacy and more concerned about truth. Him not giving an interview is him, yes, engaging his right to privacy. Filling in the gaps with made-up stuff isn't violating his privacy so much as it's saying a bunch of stuff that isn't true.
Someone being a douche with views others find distasteful doesn't justify making stuff up about him. The truth is still out there, and I don't think this movie does it justice. It can't.
did you get all up in arms about the slanderous lies in Citizen Kane over William Randolph Hearst, too
i'm all for complaining about movies you don't see, but at least try to find a reason that isn't so shallow
Charles Foster Kane was a fictional character, and didn't purport to tell a true story, only to be based on one.
Tomanta, I think in the context of history, creative liberties are a necessity. This subject just seemslike it would be far more suited to a documentary, so you could actually get a feel for IM conversations that were really had, and get people talking about he-said and she-said. This is just... I don't know, the line seems way too blurred to me.
did you get all up in arms about the slanderous lies in Citizen Kane over William Randolph Hearst, too
i'm all for complaining about movies you don't see, but at least try to find a reason that isn't so shallow
Charles Foster Kane was a fictional character, and didn't purport to tell a true story, only to be based on one.
Tomanta, I think in the context of history, creative liberties are a necessity. This subject just seemslike it would be far more suited to a documentary, so you could actually get a feel for IM conversations that were really had, and get people talking about he-said and she-said. This is just... I don't know, the line seems way too blurred to me.
spectacular, then you don't have to watch it
but i'm sure zuckerman's feelings will be cushioned by his billions of dollars should the movie make aspersions towards his character
and until it's started hitting theaters near us, putting on your best agent-mulder pout and going "THE TRUTH IS OUT THEEEEERE" just makes it look like you're bending over backwards to dislike the thing in advance
I think the difference with W. is that 1) everyone already knows about his incompetence and idiocy, 2) The President of the United States does not have the same expectation of privacy, and 3) it's Oliver Stone, nobody cares.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
But guess what? If you dont clear the air yourself, then we only have to go by what we know, and what I know so far is that Jeff Zuckerberg is an egotistical douche who believes privacy is a dead construct and he should be able to sell any information he wants to an advertiser.
Yep, why defend the privacy of someone who wants nothing more than to own yours? He's already been exposed as quite hypocritical at following his own information sharing "beliefs". That's not even hearsay if you read his statements on privacy, and also lookup the history of his locked down FB account. He'll do and say anything for money, and has no real morals beyond that. I can't imagine this film portraying Zuck as even half as bad as he really is.
If anyone has watched the movie, can you let us know if the movie shows Zuck stealing email passwords from his enemies and calling his users "dumb fucks"?
I'm less concerned about privacy and more concerned about truth. Him not giving an interview is him, yes, engaging his right to privacy. Filling in the gaps with made-up stuff isn't violating his privacy so much as it's saying a bunch of stuff that isn't true.
Someone being a douche with views others find distasteful doesn't justify making stuff up about him. The truth is still out there, and I don't think this movie does it justice. It can't.
From the sounds of things (articles and DoomSong's report), the events paint zuck in a more positive light than it should have. So maybe I'll agree with you on that it doesn't paint an accurate picture, if it leaves out many of the worst accusations against zucker (stealing ideas is the least of them).
Really, making up minor details of his life is all they can do. It's whether the public accusations are accurate and his demeanor is realistic that matters more. Common sense should tell us that off the record and private events are dramatized.
Maybe that's true, but you going after me isn't really helping me understand why, and "i'm sure zuckerman's feelings will be cushioned by his billions of dollars should the movie make aspersions towards his character" just seems to be seeking to justify slander with "he's rich, and kind of a jerk".
Maybe that's true, but you going after me isn't really helping me understand why, and "i'm sure zuckerman's feelings will be cushioned by his billions of dollars should the movie make aspersions towards his character" just seems to be seeking to justify slander with "he's rich, and kind of a jerk".
slandering the rich is so great
it is like baseball, but with more slander
but apparently this movie doesn't even seem to do that, so you're just clinging on to slander as another way to justify your vague "pursuit of truth" argument
From the sounds of things (articles and DoomSong's report), the events paint zuck in a more positive light than it should have. So maybe I'll agree with you on that it doesn't paint an accurate picture, if it leaves out many of the worst accusations against zucker (stealing ideas is the least of them).
Really, making up minor details of his life is all they can do. It's whether the public accusations are accurate and his demeanor is realistic that matters more. Common sense should tell us that off the record and private events are dramatized.
So... why a fictionalized account? How are people supposed to take the movie, and how do you think they will? A documentary seems like it would be far more appropriate for this kind of story, not because it would be more entertaining or interesting, but because of the nature of the subject matter.
Maybe that's true, but you going after me isn't really helping me understand why, and "i'm sure zuckerman's feelings will be cushioned by his billions of dollars should the movie make aspersions towards his character" just seems to be seeking to justify slander with "he's rich, and kind of a jerk".
slandering the rich is so great
it is like baseball, but with more slander
but apparently this movie doesn't even seem to do that, so you're just clinging on to slander as another way to justify your vague "pursuit of truth" argument
I dunno, I'm sensing a lot of nerd-rage out of you here. I'm "clinging", and "putting on [my] best agent-mulder pout", etc etc. Why all the investment in the movie, and why the weird hate-on for the odd dissenter?
If your intent is to get me more interested in dissecting your primal, circle-the-wagon tribalistic tendancies, you have me intrigued as you're obviously quite the specimen. I want to talk about this movie though, and this thread isn't the right place. Maybe another time.
EDIT: What a crappy TOTP. I'll take this opportunity to copy/paste my BOTP thing from the last page:
From the sounds of things (articles and DoomSong's report), the events paint zuck in a more positive light than it should have. So maybe I'll agree with you on that it doesn't paint an accurate picture, if it leaves out many of the worst accusations against zucker (stealing ideas is the least of them).
Really, making up minor details of his life is all they can do. It's whether the public accusations are accurate and his demeanor is realistic that matters more. Common sense should tell us that off the record and private events are dramatized.
So... why a fictionalized account? How are people supposed to take the movie, and how do you think they will? A documentary seems like it would be far more appropriate for this kind of story, not because it would be more entertaining or interesting, but because of the nature of the subject matter.
So... why a fictionalized account? How are people supposed to take the movie, and how do you think they will? A documentary seems like it would be far more appropriate for this kind of story, not because it would be more entertaining or interesting, but because of the nature of the subject matter.
A documentary will come out eventually. For now it's a drama -- a hollywood biopic. Some storytellers saw a good chance to make a cinematic film on a current person. They have to leave out some information and add some to make it entertaining. This one is more rare due to its sociopath protagonist and the fact that it's not easily categorized as others. It's holding the space between a true documentary and fictional drama, but that doesn't mean it should be made into something else.
falsedef on
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
From the sounds of things (articles and DoomSong's report), the events paint zuck in a more positive light than it should have. So maybe I'll agree with you on that it doesn't paint an accurate picture, if it leaves out many of the worst accusations against zucker (stealing ideas is the least of them).
Really, making up minor details of his life is all they can do. It's whether the public accusations are accurate and his demeanor is realistic that matters more. Common sense should tell us that off the record and private events are dramatized.
So... why a fictionalized account? How are people supposed to take the movie, and how do you think they will? A documentary seems like it would be far more appropriate for this kind of story, not because it would be more entertaining or interesting, but because of the nature of the subject matter.
Bullshit. A documentary and this movie can exist side by side, serving two completely different purposes and both would potentially be excellent films.
This story has all the pulpy goodness needed to be a wonderful, tense drama... And by all reviewer accounts it was a success.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
I'm not talking about the quality of the movie. I'm almost certain it's pretty great.
some guy named zark muckerberg who may or may not have ripped off his college buddies some webpage or something
It's like that segment of the internet which writes fanfiction... about real people. So they can share fantasies about their favorite singers hooking up. And things of that nature. It's kind of, for lack of a better term, icky.
You could argue that this is worse too because it's inevitable that many people will misinterpret it as factual, while nobody would misinterpret the icky fanfiction that way.
i am interested in sorkins hate boner for the web though.
This reaction of "Oh, he didn't participate in his own witch burning, so fuck him" Is extremely godsdamned irritating, by the way. We all have a right to privacy, especially from predatory dicks who basically want to libel us.
Also, Zuckerberg being an awkward nerd should not exactly be news. Who cares if he isn't the best person in the world? You don't fucking know him. And neither does Sorkin.
The movie is supposed to have a large focus on the characters that sprout facebook, and not facebook itself. I think the movie was written with the intention of using any social network, facebook just happened to fit it best. The fact that some people call it the facebook movie, is a pretty big stereotype and would explain why half of the world wouldn't want to see it.
But the reviews speak for themselves, the talent is definitely there, I'm sure it's great, and I'll probably end up seeing it today.
...Oh yeah, TRENT FUCKING REZNOR.
Same, but then again Fight Club didn't open that well in theaters either, and we all know how great that movie is.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
loren also hated zombieland
so he is basically the devil
just in regards to film
whaaaaaaaaaaaa
Zombieland was great
Although I am biased as the director is my friend's brother
However, I think that ultimately this may be the best to come of this film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfEzHdWKOoQ
There's a parody for Twitter too. What else can we expect from the internet?
Yeah there's supposed to be a lot of jump cuts that go from story to story, but it's not made to be confusing. It's just done so that it shows everyone's side.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
But guess what? If you dont clear the air yourself, then we only have to go by what we know, and what I know so far is that Jeff Zuckerberg is an egotistical douche who believes privacy is a dead construct and he should be able to sell any information he wants to an advertiser.
On the black screen
What had he done wrong?
Definition of ACQUIT
2
: to discharge completely (as from an obligation or accusation) <the court acquitted the prisoner>
3
: to conduct (oneself) usually satisfactorily especially under stress <the recruits acquitted themselves like veterans>
I'm in agreement with all this. Zuckerberg, for all his flaws, seems like the victim of this movie to me. I get the impression that people are overlooking this because of his wealth or because they don't like him.
This is off topic, but Zombieland had long stretches of movie that had no zombies, and were absolutely fucking boring. And the ending was cliche and annoying. OTOH, it had one of the single funniest cameogags I've ever seen. I dunno, it was okay mostly, hilarious occasionally, with some serious, serious flaws in regards to pacing and finishing.
EDIT: I went away from the movie feeling annoyed, mostly though. I was all, "I thought that was supposed to be a movie with some goddamn zombies in i!"
Yep, why defend the privacy of someone who wants nothing more than to own yours? He's already been exposed as quite hypocritical at following his own information sharing "beliefs". That's not even hearsay if you read his statements on privacy, and also lookup the history of his locked down FB account. He'll do and say anything for money, and has no real morals beyond that. I can't imagine this film portraying Zuck as even half as bad as he really is.
If anyone has watched the movie, can you let us know if the movie shows Zuck stealing email passwords from his enemies and calling his users "dumb fucks"?
Well it is facebook.
XBL:Gravity MD PSN:Gravity1204 Steam:Gravity1204
Touche'. I'm seeing it in a few hours. I'll let you guys know what I think.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I'm less concerned about privacy and more concerned about truth. Him not giving an interview is him, yes, engaging his right to privacy. Filling in the gaps with made-up stuff isn't violating his privacy so much as it's saying a bunch of stuff that isn't true.
Someone being a douche with views others find distasteful doesn't justify making stuff up about him. The truth is still out there, and I don't think this movie does it justice. It can't.
did you get all up in arms about the slanderous lies in Citizen Kane over William Randolph Hearst, too
i'm all for complaining about movies you don't see, but at least try to find a reason that isn't so shallow
Charles Foster Kane was a fictional character, and didn't purport to tell a true story, only to be based on one.
Tomanta, I think in the context of history, creative liberties are a necessity. This subject just seemslike it would be far more suited to a documentary, so you could actually get a feel for IM conversations that were really had, and get people talking about he-said and she-said. This is just... I don't know, the line seems way too blurred to me.
spectacular, then you don't have to watch it
but i'm sure zuckerman's feelings will be cushioned by his billions of dollars should the movie make aspersions towards his character
and until it's started hitting theaters near us, putting on your best agent-mulder pout and going "THE TRUTH IS OUT THEEEEERE" just makes it look like you're bending over backwards to dislike the thing in advance
your standards for truth are so poorly conveyed
From the sounds of things (articles and DoomSong's report), the events paint zuck in a more positive light than it should have. So maybe I'll agree with you on that it doesn't paint an accurate picture, if it leaves out many of the worst accusations against zucker (stealing ideas is the least of them).
Really, making up minor details of his life is all they can do. It's whether the public accusations are accurate and his demeanor is realistic that matters more. Common sense should tell us that off the record and private events are dramatized.
Maybe that's true, but you going after me isn't really helping me understand why, and "i'm sure zuckerman's feelings will be cushioned by his billions of dollars should the movie make aspersions towards his character" just seems to be seeking to justify slander with "he's rich, and kind of a jerk".
slandering the rich is so great
it is like baseball, but with more slander
but apparently this movie doesn't even seem to do that, so you're just clinging on to slander as another way to justify your vague "pursuit of truth" argument
So... why a fictionalized account? How are people supposed to take the movie, and how do you think they will? A documentary seems like it would be far more appropriate for this kind of story, not because it would be more entertaining or interesting, but because of the nature of the subject matter.
I dunno, I'm sensing a lot of nerd-rage out of you here. I'm "clinging", and "putting on [my] best agent-mulder pout", etc etc. Why all the investment in the movie, and why the weird hate-on for the odd dissenter?
If your intent is to get me more interested in dissecting your primal, circle-the-wagon tribalistic tendancies, you have me intrigued as you're obviously quite the specimen. I want to talk about this movie though, and this thread isn't the right place. Maybe another time.
EDIT: What a crappy TOTP. I'll take this opportunity to copy/paste my BOTP thing from the last page:
So... why a fictionalized account? How are people supposed to take the movie, and how do you think they will? A documentary seems like it would be far more appropriate for this kind of story, not because it would be more entertaining or interesting, but because of the nature of the subject matter.
just like you had that weird thing for china for like, two years
vague non-complaints about truth aside, maybe i'll see this
i wouldn't mind finding a few clips first, just to see what's got critics so gaga over it
Racism now I see.
A documentary will come out eventually. For now it's a drama -- a hollywood biopic. Some storytellers saw a good chance to make a cinematic film on a current person. They have to leave out some information and add some to make it entertaining. This one is more rare due to its sociopath protagonist and the fact that it's not easily categorized as others. It's holding the space between a true documentary and fictional drama, but that doesn't mean it should be made into something else.
Bullshit. A documentary and this movie can exist side by side, serving two completely different purposes and both would potentially be excellent films.
This story has all the pulpy goodness needed to be a wonderful, tense drama... And by all reviewer accounts it was a success.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...