Hell, has anyone checked to see if any "Truth behind the movie!" documentaries are coming out this weekend? That almost always happens with movies like this.
Hell, has anyone checked to see if any "Truth behind the movie!" documentaries are coming out this weekend? That almost always happens with movies like this.
No but Zuckerberg probably sold all the photos on the writer's and cast's facebook pages to male enhancement and webcam "chat" companies.
ok so if your incensed because they "made stuff up to fill in the blanks", then why defend Jeff Zuckerfuck staying quiet? He had his chance to fill in the blanks, he refused.
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.
You seem to be operating under the impression that I'm calling this a bad movie or something. I'm not. I'm sure it's an interesting, taut drama.
ok so if your incensed because they "made stuff up to fill in the blanks", then why defend Jeff Zuckerfuck staying quiet? He had his chance to fill in the blanks, he refused.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview. That doesn't mean making stuff up is a valid alternative.
ok so if your incensed because they "made stuff up to fill in the blanks", then why defend Jeff Zuckerfuck staying quiet? He had his chance to fill in the blanks, he refused.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview. That doesn't mean making stuff up is a valid alternative.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview, and a movie based on true events has no obligation to figure out his side of the story when he wont talk about it.
ok so if your incensed because they "made stuff up to fill in the blanks", then why defend Jeff Zuckerfuck staying quiet? He had his chance to fill in the blanks, he refused.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview. That doesn't mean making stuff up is a valid alternative.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview, and a movie based on true events has no obligation to figure out his side of the story when he wont talk about it.
Sure. But his refusal to have an interview doesn't justify making stuff up. It's a story that purports to be about real events and real people, but it's actually just a fictionalized version of both. It's sure to spark discussions about actual businesses and actual people though, and I think it's difficult to doubt that people are going to use this movie as the basis for that discussion.
That bugs me, and I think it should bug other people.
Here's my take on how the film portrays Zuck, spoiler tagged just to be safe.
I seem to recall someone, Sorkin possibly, saying the film does it's best to tell the film's story from multiple angles. I believe it did this successfully. Zuckerburg, as the main character, gets the most screentime, and as those sections are told from his perspective, you get a good idea of how he operates. With one or two exceptions, I never saw Mark as an asshole, I saw him as a guy who wanted to do something big. The people in the film who are suing him for creative theft or whatever, obviously try and paint Zuck as an asshole who would steal their ideas, and their dialogues and actions reflect this. Much of the movie revolves around all of the court cases that came out of this, so there are characters that suggest that Mark is a good guy, there are others that say he's a thief, and all in all, whatever his character is is a bit of a grey area. Now if I were Zuck, I might be pissed off at my characterization, but how many people really like how they come off in stories like this anyway?
I think it is something that people will talk about, whether Zuck did the right or wrong thing, but I don't really think he was painted in a negative light. There's two sides to every story, and this movie seems to do a good job of, allegedly, covering all of those bases.
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
edited October 2010
Just got back. Not to jump on the bandwagon on what every other critic has said already but it was really, really good. Since this is a drama of mostly dialog and very little to no action, of course the writing is superb. How the characters are portrayed is very interesting and I felt glued to the story throughout the entire movie. So much that when the ending came, I was expecting more. I didn't even realize that I was already sitting there for two+ hours. In that sense, the movie is brilliant and keeps you captivated for more than the running time. The writing is quick and fast paced, the music fits the movie very well, and the acting is top notch.
However, I think calling it movie of the year may be a little too raving. The movie was good yes, but to today's generation of limelight addicted teenagers who live facebook from day to day, they probably won't take anything from it but a few jokes here and there. In that perspective, I can't imagine this selling well. Then again it was better than just about every other movie I've seen this year, sub Inception and Shutter Island of course.
I thought it was great, I'll probably see it again before it leaves theaters.
Saw it. Was fucking brilliant. The score by Reznor was amazing and perfect. One huge annoyance with the movie though:
The ending. Take out that fucking music. Take it out. Or add a dark ambient track by Reznor. But that ending music was such an epic detriment to what should have been and was to a lesser degree a knockout last scene. I think everyone still gets the message that the man who invented facebook ironically has no friends and is very dark inside, but it should have been stronger. It doesn't even feel like fincher was in charge of the decision with that terrible music.
Draper on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
It's a story that purports to be about real events and real people, but it's actually just a fictionalized version of both. It's sure to spark discussions about actual businesses and actual people though, and I think it's difficult to doubt that people are going to use this movie as the basis for that discussion.
That bugs me, and I think it should bug other people.
It's a story that purports to be a fictionalization loosely based on actual events. This is hardly a new category. Remember, for instance, every historical movie you've ever seen? I'm sure that some people talked about the Eastern Front after walking out of Enemy at the Gates, though it certainly wasn't a documentary and no one takes it as such.
ok so if your incensed because they "made stuff up to fill in the blanks", then why defend Jeff Zuckerfuck staying quiet? He had his chance to fill in the blanks, he refused.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview. That doesn't mean making stuff up is a valid alternative.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview, and a movie based on true events has no obligation to figure out his side of the story when he wont talk about it.
Sure. But his refusal to have an interview doesn't justify making stuff up. It's a story that purports to be about real events and real people, but it's actually just a fictionalized version of both. It's sure to spark discussions about actual businesses and actual people though, and I think it's difficult to doubt that people are going to use this movie as the basis for that discussion.
That bugs me, and I think it should bug other people.
The movie never claims to be completely non-fiction. And besides, all the character work is done as flawlessly as literally any other movie ever made. The picture it paints of Zuckerberg is absolutely compelling, and I don't blame anyone for pondering the possibility that the real man might be at least a little bit like he is in the movie. At least when it comes to what his motivations are.
It's a story that purports to be about real events and real people, but it's actually just a fictionalized version of both. It's sure to spark discussions about actual businesses and actual people though, and I think it's difficult to doubt that people are going to use this movie as the basis for that discussion.
That bugs me, and I think it should bug other people.
It's a story that purports to be a fictionalization loosely based on actual events. This is hardly a new category. Remember, for instance, every historical movie you've ever seen? I'm sure that some people talked about the Eastern Front after walking out of Enemy at the Gates, though it certainly wasn't a documentary and no one takes it as such.
Your complaints generalize to almost all fiction.
I don't think they generalize to "almost all fiction" as not all fiction is based in history. I understand your broader point though, I think. But... I also think there's a distinction between stories about relatively current events and older history. People curious about the Eastern Front aren't going to think that the events in Enemy at the Gates actually happened except in the broader sense of there being the broad event of World War II, the siege of Stalingrad... they understand that the characters are fiction (though perhaps inspired by real people) placed in real settings.
I think a better example for your point might be 300, and I suppose my complaints revolve around the temporal proximity to the events the movie is about, and the characters that are based on and named after real people that take central importance to the story. It's much harder to sort out what actually happened from what Aaron Sorkin thought would make for a stronger movie given these factors.
How people receive a movie is not the movie's fault, it's people's.
Yeah... in some sense, we should say that this is a problem of people being too credulous and it's on them to sort fact from fiction, but at the same time, this kind of movie--all movies, really--exists in the context of human beings and human failings, the confusion it will cause is predictable, and as such I'm not sure that its creators are off the hook, and I'm not sure that the movie's artistic merit outweighs the problem it has with how it represents the truth, and will be mistaken for the truth.
There was an hour-long episode of On Point (available for free at NPR.org) about the movie. Sorkin says everything is based on first-hand accounts, and that some of the accounts in the movie contradict each other, even.
Haven't seen it yet, though.
Hamurabi on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I don't think they generalize to "almost all fiction" as not all fiction is based in history. I understand your broader point though, I think. But... I also think there's a distinction between stories about relatively current events and older history. People curious about the Eastern Front aren't going to think that the events in Enemy at the Gates actually happened except in the broader sense of there being the broad event of World War II, the siege of Stalingrad... they understand that the characters are fiction (though perhaps inspired by real people) placed in real settings.
I think a better example for your point might be 300, and I suppose my complaints revolve around the temporal proximity to the events the movie is about, and the characters that are based on and named after real people that take central importance to the story. It's much harder to sort out what actually happened from what Aaron Sorkin thought would make for a stronger movie given these factors.
Enemy at the Gates is actually based on the duel between real-life snipers Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev and Erwin König. But, again, no one would think that it was anything more than based on their lives. It is not a documentary. Neither, indeed, is the Social Network, nor does it represent itself as such.
Edit: a better example might be Citizen Kane, which everyone knows is based on William Randolph Hearst but yet everyone also knows is a fictionalized account. It would be a dramatic chilling effect on the arts if we were to decide that movies like Citizen Kane shouldn't be made.
Edit: a better example might be Citizen Kane, which everyone knows is based on William Randolph Hearst but yet everyone also knows is a fictionalized account. It would be a dramatic chilling effect on the arts if we were to decide that movies like Citizen Kane shouldn't be made.
This goes all the way back to, and before, the Iliad. The siege and destruction of Troy did really happen, but jealous and petty gods probably weren't the instigators. Real events embellished and dramatized are the foundation of storytelling.
Edit: Better to say that its one of the foundations of storytelling. While the Iliad is probably based on some historical event, the Odyssey is a completely wild fantasy. The Iliad forms one pillar of Western storytelling, and the Odyssey another.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
this film looks sick as fuck and I cannot wait to see it. Jesse Eisenberg is a great actor, loved him in Adventureland, and hopefully he will be good in this too.
Sadly, nobody else I know wants to see it. I am surrounded by philistines.
I don't think they generalize to "almost all fiction" as not all fiction is based in history. I understand your broader point though, I think. But... I also think there's a distinction between stories about relatively current events and older history. People curious about the Eastern Front aren't going to think that the events in Enemy at the Gates actually happened except in the broader sense of there being the broad event of World War II, the siege of Stalingrad... they understand that the characters are fiction (though perhaps inspired by real people) placed in real settings.
I think a better example for your point might be 300, and I suppose my complaints revolve around the temporal proximity to the events the movie is about, and the characters that are based on and named after real people that take central importance to the story. It's much harder to sort out what actually happened from what Aaron Sorkin thought would make for a stronger movie given these factors.
Enemy at the Gates is actually based on the duel between real-life snipers Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev and Erwin König. But, again, no one would think that it was anything more than based on their lives. It is not a documentary. Neither, indeed, is the Social Network, nor does it represent itself as such.
Edit: a better example might be Citizen Kane, which everyone knows is based on William Randolph Hearst but yet everyone also knows is a fictionalized account. It would be a dramatic chilling effect on the arts if we were to decide that movies like Citizen Kane shouldn't be made.
I think his issue lies in the usage of real people, and not just alluding to them. For example, Anastasia (yeah, I know) used Rasputin as an evil madman, when in real life he probably wasn't that bad.
no. Actually I got mad at a fellow reviewer for saying that about this film. She was talking about how it was the standard Aaron Sorkin walk and talk style, and I was like, shut up.
The story is incredibly exciting and intricate, and that's an accomplishment in and of itself, especially for an audience that's used to be condescended to. There are layers of being outcasted, shoved aside, and every drama or conflict in the film seems to come from the notion that someone has been left out. Someone has been excluded, ignored, not had their friend request accepted.
I mean it's all here. At one point one character does something a little sneaky that takes down the facebook site for a little while, and this is all because he felt left out, shut out, and he didn't like the way things were going. He took his ball and went home. The same thing that happened in those gradeschool backyard football games when the fat kid got tackled too hard. The film is a wonderful reflection of this dynamic. That's not to say the movie is perfect.
Too often Fincher would get a little fancy and make one character blurry until they come back with a witty, below the belt barb, and I know this is to create drama and all of that, but it happened so often it could have been a drinking game.
Also, Fincher used CGI for breath in the cold and snow flakes. After a summer of watching computers shoot each other with lasers, to see obvious CGI snow takes you out of the film, and considering how much attention this film requires, these little peeves grow into full fledged annoyances.
It’s as if Fincher was worried the audience's attention span was going to wain, and he needed something, anything, to distract us from all this pesky talking, kids like them fancy computer graphics right?
On the subject of computers, thank God someone took Internet technology seriously. Movies rarely pay attention to technological fidelity. Characters dial only four numbers on a phone. Play an Xbox by only hitting the shoulder buttons. The entirety of “Swordfish”. There was a real and mounting fear in me that The Social Network was going to botch the Internet in spectacular fashion. Amazingly, the content wasn't dumbed down! The film took a noble gamble in believing the audience's needs for authenticity in the technology presented.
The reason the technology was represented in an accurate and exciting way was the writing. Most assuredly an Aaron Sorkin script, chatty dialog and all, it’s easy to forget he wrote it. I mean that in the best way possible.
Sorkin’s prior work included characters having a pesky habit of being maybe a bit to clever for their own good. A bit too “aren't we witty?”. The Social Network's characters talk as normal people would. The first scene in the movie seemed like Aaron Sorkin was just stretching his creative legs, but served the purpose of establishing the theme of Zuckerbergs habit of unintentional Douchebaggary. There is a scene you'll also notice with Sean Parker, Zuckerbeg, Eduardo and a minor character, Christie that was too cute for my liking.
yeah, its actually interesting cause when people write characters that don't talk like normal people ( ie. juno, garden state etc.) its usually obvious and annoying cause it takes you out of the movie, but sorkin consistently manages to do so without ruining the audience's connection with the scene and characters. Of course if you read some his scripts some of the dialogue is absolutely absurd (particularly in the west wing) but you never notice it while watching the episodes. For me thats a pretty big accomplishment considering i'm pretty sensitive to those kinda things.
I don't think they generalize to "almost all fiction" as not all fiction is based in history. I understand your broader point though, I think. But... I also think there's a distinction between stories about relatively current events and older history. People curious about the Eastern Front aren't going to think that the events in Enemy at the Gates actually happened except in the broader sense of there being the broad event of World War II, the siege of Stalingrad... they understand that the characters are fiction (though perhaps inspired by real people) placed in real settings.
I think a better example for your point might be 300, and I suppose my complaints revolve around the temporal proximity to the events the movie is about, and the characters that are based on and named after real people that take central importance to the story. It's much harder to sort out what actually happened from what Aaron Sorkin thought would make for a stronger movie given these factors.
Enemy at the Gates is actually based on the duel between real-life snipers Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev and Erwin König. But, again, no one would think that it was anything more than based on their lives. It is not a documentary. Neither, indeed, is the Social Network, nor does it represent itself as such.
Edit: a better example might be Citizen Kane, which everyone knows is based on William Randolph Hearst but yet everyone also knows is a fictionalized account. It would be a dramatic chilling effect on the arts if we were to decide that movies like Citizen Kane shouldn't be made.
I think his issue lies in the usage of real people, and not just alluding to them. For example, Anastasia (yeah, I know) used Rasputin as an evil madman, when in real life he probably wasn't that bad.
That's right. Not sure about Rasputin, but the lack of ambiguity squicks me out. Citizen Kain, Enemy at the Gates, these used characters with different names, clearly based on real people and events, but that degree of artifice put in an ambiguity that I think is... necessary, I guess? With The Social Network, it's less obvious what is a dramatization of actual events and conversations and what is just drama.
Loren Michael 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
The problem is that at the same time it's "only a movie", it also seems to claim to be a "definitive" version of what went down.
The problem is that at the same time it's "only a movie", it also seems to claim to be a "definitive" version of what went down.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think you're pretty close. I'm really not sure how to put words on the exact nature of the problem I'm feeling, seeing--which is a weakness, I admit--but it's something to do with that kind of ambiguity.
The only claim I've seen is that it tries to present all viewpoints on the issue.
It presents fictionalized viewpoints though.
Loren Michael 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 a large part of the problem for me is that there's no way to factcheck. But I'm going to agree with Loren. My unease is hard to put into words.
Fencingsax on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited October 2010
I think you are simultaneously overestimating the amount of objectivity that goes into even documentary presentations and underestimating the amount of factual claims that even clearly fictional works imply.
Posts
No but Zuckerberg probably sold all the photos on the writer's and cast's facebook pages to male enhancement and webcam "chat" companies.
You seem to be operating under the impression that I'm calling this a bad movie or something. I'm not. I'm sure it's an interesting, taut drama.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview. That doesn't mean making stuff up is a valid alternative.
He's under no obligation to submit to an interview, and a movie based on true events has no obligation to figure out his side of the story when he wont talk about it.
Sure. But his refusal to have an interview doesn't justify making stuff up. It's a story that purports to be about real events and real people, but it's actually just a fictionalized version of both. It's sure to spark discussions about actual businesses and actual people though, and I think it's difficult to doubt that people are going to use this movie as the basis for that discussion.
That bugs me, and I think it should bug other people.
I think it is something that people will talk about, whether Zuck did the right or wrong thing, but I don't really think he was painted in a negative light. There's two sides to every story, and this movie seems to do a good job of, allegedly, covering all of those bases.
XBL:Gravity MD PSN:Gravity1204 Steam:Gravity1204
Hey, I have a blog! (Actually being updated again!)
3DS: 0860-3240-2604
However, I think calling it movie of the year may be a little too raving. The movie was good yes, but to today's generation of limelight addicted teenagers who live facebook from day to day, they probably won't take anything from it but a few jokes here and there. In that perspective, I can't imagine this selling well. Then again it was better than just about every other movie I've seen this year, sub Inception and Shutter Island of course.
I thought it was great, I'll probably see it again before it leaves theaters.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
All I gotta say is fuck you good sir. Trent Reznor is a god amongst mediocre artists of today's offerings.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
It's a story that purports to be a fictionalization loosely based on actual events. This is hardly a new category. Remember, for instance, every historical movie you've ever seen? I'm sure that some people talked about the Eastern Front after walking out of Enemy at the Gates, though it certainly wasn't a documentary and no one takes it as such.
Your complaints generalize to almost all fiction.
The movie never claims to be completely non-fiction. And besides, all the character work is done as flawlessly as literally any other movie ever made. The picture it paints of Zuckerberg is absolutely compelling, and I don't blame anyone for pondering the possibility that the real man might be at least a little bit like he is in the movie. At least when it comes to what his motivations are.
I don't think they generalize to "almost all fiction" as not all fiction is based in history. I understand your broader point though, I think. But... I also think there's a distinction between stories about relatively current events and older history. People curious about the Eastern Front aren't going to think that the events in Enemy at the Gates actually happened except in the broader sense of there being the broad event of World War II, the siege of Stalingrad... they understand that the characters are fiction (though perhaps inspired by real people) placed in real settings.
I think a better example for your point might be 300, and I suppose my complaints revolve around the temporal proximity to the events the movie is about, and the characters that are based on and named after real people that take central importance to the story. It's much harder to sort out what actually happened from what Aaron Sorkin thought would make for a stronger movie given these factors.
Yeah... in some sense, we should say that this is a problem of people being too credulous and it's on them to sort fact from fiction, but at the same time, this kind of movie--all movies, really--exists in the context of human beings and human failings, the confusion it will cause is predictable, and as such I'm not sure that its creators are off the hook, and I'm not sure that the movie's artistic merit outweighs the problem it has with how it represents the truth, and will be mistaken for the truth.
Haven't seen it yet, though.
Enemy at the Gates is actually based on the duel between real-life snipers Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev and Erwin König. But, again, no one would think that it was anything more than based on their lives. It is not a documentary. Neither, indeed, is the Social Network, nor does it represent itself as such.
Edit: a better example might be Citizen Kane, which everyone knows is based on William Randolph Hearst but yet everyone also knows is a fictionalized account. It would be a dramatic chilling effect on the arts if we were to decide that movies like Citizen Kane shouldn't be made.
This goes all the way back to, and before, the Iliad. The siege and destruction of Troy did really happen, but jealous and petty gods probably weren't the instigators. Real events embellished and dramatized are the foundation of storytelling.
Edit: Better to say that its one of the foundations of storytelling. While the Iliad is probably based on some historical event, the Odyssey is a completely wild fantasy. The Iliad forms one pillar of Western storytelling, and the Odyssey another.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Sadly, nobody else I know wants to see it. I am surrounded by philistines.
I think his issue lies in the usage of real people, and not just alluding to them. For example, Anastasia (yeah, I know) used Rasputin as an evil madman, when in real life he probably wasn't that bad.
Twitter
On the other hand I can't stand Jesse Eisenberg, and seeing his face plastered all over this thing always bothers me.
What to do...what to do...
Do you now?
Go see it.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
Though I'm biased for I got to interview Aaron Sorkin before it came out.
Facebook: MeekinOnMovies
Twitter: Twitter.com/MeekinOnMovies
My 10 commandments of game reviewing
7 Great Games Playing Watch_Dogs will remind you of/url]
Far Cry 4: 10 Essential Features it Must Have
10 Videogames Ruined By The Hype
I mean it's all here. At one point one character does something a little sneaky that takes down the facebook site for a little while, and this is all because he felt left out, shut out, and he didn't like the way things were going. He took his ball and went home. The same thing that happened in those gradeschool backyard football games when the fat kid got tackled too hard. The film is a wonderful reflection of this dynamic. That's not to say the movie is perfect.
Too often Fincher would get a little fancy and make one character blurry until they come back with a witty, below the belt barb, and I know this is to create drama and all of that, but it happened so often it could have been a drinking game.
Also, Fincher used CGI for breath in the cold and snow flakes. After a summer of watching computers shoot each other with lasers, to see obvious CGI snow takes you out of the film, and considering how much attention this film requires, these little peeves grow into full fledged annoyances.
It’s as if Fincher was worried the audience's attention span was going to wain, and he needed something, anything, to distract us from all this pesky talking, kids like them fancy computer graphics right?
On the subject of computers, thank God someone took Internet technology seriously. Movies rarely pay attention to technological fidelity. Characters dial only four numbers on a phone. Play an Xbox by only hitting the shoulder buttons. The entirety of “Swordfish”. There was a real and mounting fear in me that The Social Network was going to botch the Internet in spectacular fashion. Amazingly, the content wasn't dumbed down! The film took a noble gamble in believing the audience's needs for authenticity in the technology presented.
The reason the technology was represented in an accurate and exciting way was the writing. Most assuredly an Aaron Sorkin script, chatty dialog and all, it’s easy to forget he wrote it. I mean that in the best way possible.
Sorkin’s prior work included characters having a pesky habit of being maybe a bit to clever for their own good. A bit too “aren't we witty?”. The Social Network's characters talk as normal people would. The first scene in the movie seemed like Aaron Sorkin was just stretching his creative legs, but served the purpose of establishing the theme of Zuckerbergs habit of unintentional Douchebaggary. There is a scene you'll also notice with Sean Parker, Zuckerbeg, Eduardo and a minor character, Christie that was too cute for my liking.
Facebook: MeekinOnMovies
Twitter: Twitter.com/MeekinOnMovies
My 10 commandments of game reviewing
7 Great Games Playing Watch_Dogs will remind you of/url]
Far Cry 4: 10 Essential Features it Must Have
10 Videogames Ruined By The Hype
Just, ya know, just sayin'
I was talking to ANTVGM64, and dlinfiniti but :^:
Sean Parker, however, was portrayed as a total asshole (which could be true...). And who knew Justin Timberlake was a good actor?
That's right. Not sure about Rasputin, but the lack of ambiguity squicks me out. Citizen Kain, Enemy at the Gates, these used characters with different names, clearly based on real people and events, but that degree of artifice put in an ambiguity that I think is... necessary, I guess? With The Social Network, it's less obvious what is a dramatization of actual events and conversations and what is just drama.
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I think you're pretty close. I'm really not sure how to put words on the exact nature of the problem I'm feeling, seeing--which is a weakness, I admit--but it's something to do with that kind of ambiguity.
It presents fictionalized viewpoints though.