The Social Network *MEGATHREAD*

ziedth

^ saw this last night and you just saved me a long post. Pretty much sums up my feelings towards the film.

Basq

Saw it last night and thought it was excellent.

Great performances by the three leads (Timberlake, Eisenberg and Garfield) but Eisenberg and Garfield were particularly excellent.

My girlfriend was sure when

Zuckerberg started developing facemash.com and the process involved in getting photos from the various houses that the film was gonna go over her head, but I knew a mainstream film like this wouldn't dabble in technotalk (Apache, PHP etc) for too long

.

The dialogue was sharp, fresh and witty.. but my oh my, it really FELT like Aaron Sorkin's writing at times. Don't get me wrong.. I love his writing but when characters read his dialogue at 50mph (e.g

Erica and Mark in the bar in the opening scene

), it's almost his trademark. It was superbly written though!

The direction was masterfully understated by Fincher. I'm a massive Fincher fan but this was Fincher at his best... remember after 'Fight Club', 'Panic Room' was just a neverending barrage of sending cameras through walls, ceilings, fridges, anything.. I prefer Fincher when he does simple but effective direction, a la Zodiac.

Anyways, definitely one of the finest films so far this year for me. Lived up to the hype. I'm a computer programmer and was always interested in the story but the girlfriend dug the hell out of it too.

Recommended!

bnt

Aaron Sorkin has commented on the script a few times - on the Kermode / Mayo show last Friday (8 October podcast here), and on the blog of veteran writer Ken Levine, here. In both cases, Sorkin asserts that the weirdest things in the screenplay were real, not inventions. He also says that you don't have to know or like Facebook to enjoy it - he didn't - but that it's about the people and the processes that went on, not the finished result.

For example, on the topic of mysogyny:

More generally, I was writing about a very angry and deeply misogynistic group of people. These aren't the cuddly nerds we made movies about in the 80's. They're very angry that the cheerleader still wants to go out with the quarterback instead of the men (boys) who are running the universe right now. The women they surround themselves with aren't women who challenge them (and frankly, no woman who could challenge them would be interested in being anywhere near them.)

And this very disturbing attitude toward women isn't just confined to the guys who can't get dates.

I didn't invent

the "F--k Truck"

, it's real--and the men (boys) at the final clubs think it's what they deserve for being who they are. (It's only fair to note that the women--bussed in from other schools for the "hot" parties, wait on line to get on that bus without anyone pointing guns at their heads.)

These women--whether it's the girls who are happy to take their clothes off and dance for the boys or Eduardo's psycho-girlfriend are real. I mean REALLY real.

johnny_ultimate

To be perfectly honest, people complaining about misogyny in this film are clearly just trying to find something to complain about in what is an extraordinarily well written film. Erica (Rooney Mara) and Marilyn (Rashida Jones) each only have two or three significant scenes in the film, but both come across as far stronger and more confident than the central male characters, who are represented with some strong characteristics, but mostly as bitter and angry. Sure, there is

one psycho girlfriend

in the mix, but these are people who

will get together with the first girls ("groupies") that even show them a bit of interest.

Most films should be criticised for their flaws, but accusing the Social Network of misogyny - and to be honest it's the men in the film who are presented as such, as opposed to the writer - is picking holes in something that is relatively close to flawless!

Basq

On reflection, I do think Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin) was the show-stealer in this. Eisenberg was fantastic also but I do think Garfield made that role his own.

I remember reading when he was announced for the 'Spiderman' reboot that people would see exactly how talented he was when 'The Social Network' was released.

I haven't seen him in anything else, but he's definitely one to watch in the future.

Oh, and he even knows the 'Bed Intruder Song'... legend!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuY92Jwrppg

Handsome Bob

The best word I can use to describe the film is "fascinating". It's a fantastic story which actually does a better job at showing the greed of society better than Wall Street 2 does.

The acting is brilliant. Eisenberg had me pulling every way watching him on screen, I felt both sympathy and coldness towards his character.

Garfield was also great, I felt nothing but sympathy for his character. I mean he had a terrible best friend, even before their falling out.I also loved his final interaction with Timberlake's character.

Speaking of Timberlake, he did a good job, but TBH I don't think the character was ever going to be too much of a stretch for him.

I wouldn't say that it's a brilliant film because the dialogue at times leaves you at an utter loss as to what the hell the characters are talking about, but as I said, it's an utterly fascinating film.

Basq

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it's a brilliant film because the dialogue at times leaves you at an utter loss as to what the hell the characters are talking about, but as I said, it's an utterly fascinating film.

What do you mean by "he dialogue at times leaves you at an utter loss as to what the hell the characters are talking about"?

Do you mean the brief bits of jargon, the speed at which they're talking or something else? I referenced earlier that the dialogue was delivered very fast during

the opening scene with Erica and Mark

- but if you've seen 'The West Wing', it's traditional Aaron Sorkin writing / character in a nutshell. But Mark Kermode made the very valid point earlier that he thought the speed of the dialogue in the opening scene was very fast, but it almost helped people adjust to the speed of dialogue in which dialogue is delivered in the film (and either I adjusted very quickly, or I didn't find the rest of the dialogue nearly as speedily delivered).

Handsome Bob

basquille wrote: »

What do you mean by "he dialogue at times leaves you at an utter loss as to what the hell the characters are talking about"?

Do you mean the brief bits of jargon, the speed at which they're talking or something else? I referenced earlier that the dialogue was delivered very fast during

the opening scene with Erica and Mark

- but if you've seen 'The West Wing', it's traditional Aaron Sorkin writing / character in a nutshell. But Mark Kermode made the very valid point earlier that he thought the speed of the dialogue in the opening scene was very fast, but it almost helped people adjust to the speed of dialogue in which dialogue is delivered in the film (and either I adjusted very quickly, or I didn't find the rest of the dialogue nearly as speedily delivered).

Jargon moreso than speed is what I meant. You referenced the opening scene, there's also the scene that follows where he's

setting up facemash

.

Admittedly it's only really a problem at the beginning.

Basq

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Jargon moreso than speed is what I meant. You referenced the opening scene, there's also the scene that follows where he's

setting up facemash

.

Admittedly it's only really a problem at the beginning.

Yeah, I mentioned already that my girlfriend looked at me when he was referring to Apache and PHP.. and was hoping it wouldn't be like this for the whole thing.

That short but fleeting bit of jargon was a great "reference" / nod for programmers (like myself) but it was very fleeting.

johnny_ultimate

Hmm, didn't feel left behind by the jargon or dialogue myself. While I didn't understand the technical side of what was being said, I was still able to follow what was going on the whole time: I didn't know what the equation on the window meant, for example, but still understood it was part of making a website. These people are computer geeks, so thankfully they didn't go too overboard on the jargon!

It definitely is a snazzily written film: a lot of the dialogue is clearly Sorkin being clever as opposed to what real people would probably say in the situation. But I think that's one of the strengths of the film (and I'd have considered it a flaw had it been badly written) in the end, a film that toys with truth and realism somewhat in order to create a better film. IMO, it worked

Basq

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I didn't know what the equation on the window meant, for example, but still understood it was part of making a website.

I was lost at the equation too tbh!

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

It definitely is a snazzily written film: a lot of the dialogue is clearly Sorkin being clever as opposed to what real people would probably say in the situation.

Yep, have said it once and said it before: Aaron Sorkin doesn't write particularly realistic dialogue, but he does write such clever and snappy dialogue that it doesn't even matter!

Handsome Bob

I did love the little self-righteous outbursts that Zuckerberg had, I thought that was great writing.

Diabhal Beag

A good film but I wouldn't say it was a great film. The way the movie was made is in a way where nobody is likeable. Zuckerburg was a prick, Parker was a gigantic asshole and to a lesser extent Eduardo.

I was kinda shocked that people described this as a comedy though. Maybe too funny bits in the entire film.

I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10.

coconut5

basquille wrote: »

On reflection, I do think Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin) was the show-stealer in this. Eisenberg was fantastic also but I do think Garfield made that role his own.

Watched this today, Andrew Garfield was terrific. I really enjoyed it, and it gave me loads of food for thought after it was over, which is a sign of a really good movie. I loved the music, the dialogue, just the whole feel of it. And nice link between the opening scene and the final scene. Very good.

here.from.day.1

I actually quite enjoyed this, I can't help but imagine they embellished the majority of it though.

ValJester

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

I actually quite enjoyed this, I can't help but imagine they embellished the majority of it though.

It's mostly fairly true to life, the main difference being the change in the personality of Shaun Fanning(hence the change of name)

I thought it was excellent, if hardly the definitive take on the 00's some called it.

andrewire

I saw it and liked it very much. I wouldn't call it an 'instant classic' though. Most US reviewers seem to disagree. I enjoyed it much more than I had expected. It was well-written, acted and directed. Loved the score and sets. I will definitely watch it again.

Branoic

ValJester wrote: »

It's mostly fairly true to life, the main difference being the change in the personality of Shaun Fanning(hence the change of name)
.

I think you're getting the founders of Napster mixed up. "Shaun" or 'Shawn" Fanning isn't in the movie and had nothing to do with Facebook.

Timberlake's character is Sean Parker - this guy, co founded Napster and was Facebook's first president, forced to step down after a cocaine bust.

senordingdong

Have just seen it and was pleasently surprised but the whole thing left me wondering, and so I checked it out, but apparently, alot of the story was dramatised and altered to make it more interesting.
This really bothered me.

Really liked the score too.

Branoic

senordingdong wrote: »

apparently, alot of the story was dramatised and altered to make it more interesting.
This really bothered me.

I think Facebook's official line that "It's fiction" is a little misleading.

Sure, there are elements of fiction in it, but on the whole I think it's a lot closer to the truth in the areas that matter than Facebook would like you to believe.

The fictional elements, IMHO, don't really alter the core truth of what happened.

Sure,

the character of Erica

is completely made up, and Mark

wasn't dumped before creating FaceMash

. Also, Eduardo

was never mentioned in any Harvard Crimson article about chickens and forced cannibalism, and his FB shares were not diluted down to 0.3% or whatever the film says (can't remember was it 0.3 or 0.03?).

But on the other hand:

Mark did have a big row with his girlfriend, blogged about doing something to take his mind of it, and created FaceMash as a result.

Pretty much everything around the Winklevoss (SP?) twins and the Harvard Connection / Facebook drama was correct.

There WAS an article in the Crimson in 2003 when Mark and Eduardo where there critising the Phoenex club for using chickens in their initiation trials, and Eduardo was going through the "punch" at the time - the article just didn't mention him.

The whole "should we go to New York and get advertisers right away or should we go to California and take on Sean Parker" thing was pretty accurate - even the fact that they attached a zipline to their chimney and damaged it.

Eduardo's shares were diluted in a very underhanded fashion. He was asked to come back from NY and presented with documents to sign reducing his shares from 33% to less than 10%. Not the dramatic 0.3% in the film, but still effectively removing him from any decision making position.

So really when you strip away the dramatic licences, the core of the story is pretty unchanged and just as effective.

Skinfull

Branoic wrote: »

I think Facebook's official line that "It's fiction" is a little misleading.
So really when you strip away the dramatic licences, the core of the story is pretty unchanged and just as effective.

Artistic license! I don't know much about the history of FB but was interested in this flick for the Writer, Aaron Sorkin. Enjoyed it enough to make it worth price of the ticket (free lol with unlimited card) and time and effort it took to go see but I wouldnt rate it top movie of the year or rave about it. 6/10

AnonoBoy

Skinfull wrote: »

Enjoyed it enough to make it worth price of the ticket (free lol with unlimited card)

Free except for the 19.99 a month that the unlimited card costs.

neaideabh

Brought my Dad to see it this afternoon. That's the third time I saw it!!! My dad thought it was class aswell!

Josey Wales

ValJester wrote: »

It's mostly fairly true to life, the main difference being the change in the personality of Shaun Fanning(hence the change of name)

Are you sure they changed his name? If so who is Sean Parker?

MGSman123

Josey Wales wrote: »

Are you sure they changed his name? If so who is Sean Parker?

No, they didn't change any names or anything. almost everything was accurate, except for that a few minor details were altered (to make the story more interesting). Most of the information is true, but you can find the most accurate depiction in the book the film is based upon.

I thought it was a great film, actually. I knew it was never going to be about Facebook directly. It was more of a greed-based drama, imo. Great film, and incredible soundtrack. (Love Reznor and NIN!!)

Skinfull

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Free except for the 19.99 a month that the unlimited card costs.

Yeah but when you go as much as I do my card has been "free" since July! WOOT!!

- one thing about this movie, I thought at the start they had delved in too deep to the coding aspect, when he was building the facemash site, and a few people left the movie thinking it was going to be like that all the way through, which it wasnt.

D'Agger

Really enjoyed the movie - thought Eisenberg was fantastic in his portrayal as Zuckerberg, felt Fincher did a great job directing it and, as has already been mentioned a few times, the score was brilliant.

I know there's no definitive end to the story but I thought the finish left alot to be desired, thought it was a bit rushed tbh

Would definately watch it a few more times easily.

AnonoBoy

Skinfull wrote: »

- one thing about this movie, I thought at the start they had delved in too deep to the coding aspect, when he was building the facemash site, and a few people left the movie thinking it was going to be like that all the way through, which it wasnt.

Too deep? They made a perfunctory nod in its direction and then left it alone completely.

If people leave a movie due a few minutes of something that they can't get their heads around then they should stick with 'Vampires Suck' and 'Epic Movie' because they're too stupid to go to anything with any more depth.

It was hardly terribly difficult to follow what was going on, even if you don't understand computers and coding it was made pretty clear he was building a site, gathering photos from places he shouldn't be accessing.

What did they expect? A progress bar going across the screen saying 'building website now'? :rolleyes:

ValJester

Josey Wales wrote: »

Are you sure they changed his name? If so who is Sean Parker?

My mistake, I wasn't aware there was more than one founder of Napster.

thenakedanddead

Truly hate to defer all the praise that's being lumped on this movie, but I just saw it and it was horseshit. How it attained mass appeal, let alone a small demographic, is beyond me.