The Social Network *MEGATHREAD*

bnt

Finally got to see this yesterday: a stunning piece of work. It's not really "about" Zuckerberg, or Facebook, but about communication and how it's changing - or not. For example: while Facebook might be new, some old-fashioned paper legal documents become important. Lawyers in suits are reading out drunken emails in meetings, while Zuckerberg's attention is elsewhere.

It's even beautifully shot in a rather old-fashioned way: no handheld shaky-cam to try to make it "edgy", relying instead on the characters and dialogue. I was surprised to read that there was CGI in the film - the Winklevii were played by one actor and a body double: I didn't notice it at the time. I also thought it was great that they shot so much on the original Harvard locations, rather than try to recreate it in the studio.

Contrast that with the scenes set in Silicon Valley, which probably was a Hollywood backlot; leaving Harvard cost Zuckerberg that sense of place, the unwritten code of the "Gentlemen of Harvard" - if he ever had it, that is, compared to Eduardo who clearly did. (Communication again - or the failure thereof.) Back at Harvard he said "money or the ability to make it doesn't impress anybody around here", but that was before Sean Parker showed up.

I don't have a Facebook account - I looked at it and said WTF? - but (as noted before) that doesn't mean I don't have a "social network" of my own. When everyone is your "friend", how many friends do you actually have?

DrumSteve

I thought it was okay... but to be honest I was not expecting a lot. It really was a film about nothing.

bnt

PS: just in case anyone's wondering about the "rating equations" that Eduardo wrote on the glass at the beginning: they're used in Chess player ranking as described here.
(This is not a spoiler - this clip was shown widely long before the movie was released)

[latex]\displaystyle
EA=\frac{1}{1+10^{\frac{RB-RA}{400}}}
[/latex]
[latex]\displaystyle
EB=\frac{1}{1+10^{\frac{RA-RB}{400}}}
[/latex]
These return "expected ratings" of each player in a pairing, based on their and the other player's existing ratings. Zuckerberg probably used these to judge how "good" a match was before putting it on screen for users to rate. In other words, Facemash could "learn" as more users entered their ratings, to the point where it got harder and harder to rate each girl against the other. In the movie, however, there's a slight mistake in the equations as written ...

it's 10 to the power of (RA-RB)/400, not 10 times

:cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_Higk7j6ck

Feelgood

I'm half way through it and switched it off, I think this story is slightly blown out of proportion!.

Since when does having a website with 4000 users make smoking hot asian chicks wanna nail you? I don't fecking think so!.

When I was at college I didn't score any chick for my coding skills, but Marc Zuckerberg knows some Perl scripting and every chick in harvard wanted his balls apparently :rolleyes:

bnt

Well, the point as I understood it was that he tapped in to an existing "face book" culture at Harvard, and so it wasn't totally unfamiliar to people there, and then it spread to other colleges and universities before going public. Perhaps he didn't know any hot Asian chicks, but he knew some guys who knew some guys who did: that's the power of social networking.

Miguel_Sanchez

Feelgood wrote: »

I'm half way through it and switched it off, I think this story is slightly blown out of proportion!.

Well he became the world's youngest billionaire so I don't think they had to exaggerate too much.

D'Agger

Feelgood wrote: »

When I was at college I didn't score any chick for my coding skills, but Marc Zuckerberg knows some Perl scripting and every chick in harvard wanted his balls apparently :rolleyes:

Well if you'd created a web page which created a massive buzz around the country at the time, which ineviatably turned you into a multi-billionaire, i'd imagine your balls would be wanted!

ValJester

Feelgood wrote: »

Since when does having a website with 4000 users make smoking hot asian chicks wanna nail you? I don't fecking think so!.

When that website is considered one of the coolest things to hit the internet in a long time, crossing over to non-nerds, and you yourself are somewhat notorious it probably does.

Synalon Etuul

Really liked this film. How much of it do you think was dramatic licence? Because it seems like Zuckerburg was sort of a dick.

Oh also the Winklevoss twins were hotttttt

TheDoc

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

I would have imagined the creation of facebook would have been quite boring no?

But hes a cool nerd, who was nailing b1tches while writing java yo!

I'll avoid this like the plague, from what I'm hearing its full of made up ****e anyway.

TheDoc

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

Well he became the world's youngest billionaire so I don't think they had to exaggerate too much.

Well supposidly the film is extremely exagerated and blown out of proportion, according to the Facebook founder himself .

his twitter had alot of stuff on it there over the last few weeks

johnny_ultimate

TheDoc wrote: »

But hes a cool nerd, who was nailing b1tches while writing java yo!

I'll avoid this like the plague, from what I'm hearing its full of made up ****e anyway.

Seriously, your loss. If you can accept a handful of bended truths, there is a true masterpiece here.

The Black Oil

2 people left an 11:10am screening I attended. I don't use Facebook and have no desire to join it. When I heard Sorkin was writing this I had no idea what he would do with it and with Fincher on board it added to my interest. That said, without a trailer or two I may have stayed away. College jocks/people can be annoying, really annoying, or at least their portrayal can be and this isn't really any exception.

I enjoyed it, for the most part. Some of the buzz around this mentioned Zuckerberg's lack of social skills or alleged that he's on the autistic spectrum. Certainly the latter didn't come across to me, at all. I'd probably put some money on the real Zuckerberg having some ASD traits, but I'm still pretty skeptical when famous people are outted as being on the spectrum. Based on the film, I took him to be a bit of a dick, more than anything else, something which is noted throughout and at the end of the film. Re what worked and what didn't - I thought Eisenberg and Timberboatinalake were pretty effective in their respective roles. I wasn't sure about it in parts of the first act because it felt like it was trying to bring too many characters into the picture. It wasn't really about Facebook or that as viewers we weren't being thrown into the online world ever other minute which I was thankful for.

TheDoc

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Seriously, your loss. If you can accept a handful of bended truths, there is a true masterpiece here.

Reading through the full thread it does seems its getting the nod from most.

Paying to see a film bout facebook doesnt seem right to me, might see if a screening is on tonight since im not doing anything

H8GHOTI

TheDoc wrote: »

Paying to see a film bout facebook doesnt seem right to me

Why? How is it different to paying to see any other film?

Muffin top

After hearing such positive reviews; or should I say after reading so many posstive reviews, I had high expectations for this. I can honestly say, I enjoyed nothing about this movie.
I am at a loss as to what people like about it. I understand a divide in opinions on films such as let's say Greenberg, Lost in Translation; some people will like them, some won't; this? I fail to see the appeal.

The movie begins with two characters babbling at each other in a bar like teenagers; their conversation is barely coherent; the same can be said to an extent for the jock twins - articulate!

The jumping from courtcase to courtcase, lawyers sitting around tables; I found this aspect really dull; it's quite a feat to turn what appears to be a very interesting story into a boring one on screen. Focusing more on the actual friendships and their deterioation would have been more fitting.

From a basic level the story on screen just dosent hold together, thheir is no character building, no background, to any character, what kind of a life did Zuckerberg have before Harvard? How did he become friends with Eduardo? All basics, none touched, one dimensional characters all of them.

As for the acting, well Zuckerberg's character is so robotic you can't really go wrong.

I would describe somewhat as a male makeover movie, you know the kind of movie where a female gets a makeover and gets the guy and life is great, only in this version the makeover is just monetary and things don't quite work out.

AnonoBoy

Muffin top wrote: »

The movie begins with two characters babbling at each other in a bar like teenagers; their conversation is barely coherent; the same can be said to an extent for the jock twins - articulate!

What do you mean by barely coherent? Do you mean you couldn't follow it or you couldn't hear what they were saying. They speak quite clearly, albeit quite fast, but they're definitely coherent.

Did you have trouble understanding the twins also? That's odd.

I mean if anything the characters in the movie are too articulate. No college students really talk like that, but that's part of Sorkin's thing I suppose - sharp, quick dialogue, loaded with comebacks and one-liners.

Muffin top

Barely coherent- as in logical, sticking together, consistent; listening to them was like listening to two teenagers 'babbling' as I said earlier; I felt the use of this scene was a way of setting up Zuckerbergs lack of apathy; it didn't work for me.

As for the twins it's the same problem I had with all of the characters really; the twins were one dimensional; they did not articulate (express through words) themselves enough.

I agree however this can be overdone, take a programme such as Dawsons Creek; (I know it's old but I can't think of a better example) people don't actually speak like that to each other.

I must have missed all of these sharp one-liners you refer to; I did walk out before the end. I have never walked out of a movie before; and I have seen alot of movies.

AnonoBoy

Muffin top wrote: »

Barely coherent- as in logical, sticking together, consistent; listening to them was like listening to two teenagers 'babbling' as I said earlier;

Personally I found it quite easy to follow, I thought their conversation followed a clear enough line throughout the scene. Granted, nobody really has conversations that jump back and forth like that and at that speed but as I said, Sorkin writes like that and Fincher deliberately got the actors to speed up this scene (or so I read).

The twins were supposed to be jocks, perhaps why they weren't really articulate, although I'm not sure if they were that inarticulate at all to be honest. The rest of the characters could not be accused of not being articulate enough.

I have never walked out of a movie before; and I have seen alot of movies.

Well done you.

Liam O

Muffin top wrote: »

Barely coherent- as in logical, sticking together, consistent; listening to them was like listening to two teenagers 'babbling'

God forbid two teenagers talking in a bar would ever sound like that :rolleyes:

johnny_ultimate

Muffin top wrote: »

Barely coherent- as in logical, sticking together, consistent; listening to them was like listening to two teenagers 'babbling' as I said earlier; I felt the use of this scene was a way of setting up Zuckerbergs lack of apathy; it didn't work for me.

As pointed out above, criticising this scene for being two teenagers 'babbling' is pretty much missing the point. If Zuckerberg came across as an ass, he was meant to. These are the trivial concerns of two young adults breaking up: I never for a second doubted that was what the scene was about. These are the characters your dealing with in this film. What would have been more appropriate? A lengthy flashback? Thank **** Fincher and Sorkin didn't resort to that. 'Barely coherent' is exaggerating to the extreme. I walked in half way through that scene, and was instantly able to pick up on what was going on.

As for the twins it's the same problem I had with all of the characters really; the twins were one dimensional; they did not articulate (express through words) themselves enough.

Is it possible that the twins were meant to be one-dimensional? Spoilt little rich kids suddenly having to deal with a problem on their own? Again, you seem to be criticising the film for things that were designed to be that way.

I agree however this can be overdone, take a programme such as Dawsons Creek; (I know it's old but I can't think of a better example) people don't actually speak like that to each other.

The dialogue in this film is theatrical. It isn't necessarily trying for realism: it aims to be sharp and effective as opposed to, say, the likes of mumblecore films which are full of the awkward silences, mumblings and pauses of typical conversations. Again, the key to this film isn't necessarily a historically accurate biopic, but a cinematic examination of contemporary society and technology. I'm more than happy to let them away with the odd piece of contrived dialogue, especially when it's so engaging. TBH, the dialogue didn't annoy me once.

Wossack

gf really had to twist my arm to see this, but in spite of myself, I really enjoyed it

cant expand more then johnnys great post (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68496586&postcount=91) - its just a fantastic yarn

Muffin top

Liam O wrote: »

God forbid two teenagers talking in a bar would ever sound like that :rolleyes:

Erm, they were in a bar in NY... they have to, at least, be in their twenties; I being a student; also in my twenties; found the scene less then thrilling.They could have done numerous things to highlight Zuckerberg's lack of feeling for others aka apathy.

Muffin top

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As pointed out above, criticising this scene for being two teenagers 'babbling' is pretty much missing the point. If Zuckerberg came across as an ass, he was meant to. These are the trivial concerns of two young adults breaking up: I never for a second doubted that was what the scene was about. These are the characters your dealing with in this film. What would have been more appropriate? A lengthy flashback? Thank **** Fincher and Sorkin didn't resort to that. 'Barely coherent' is exaggerating to the extreme. I walked in half way through that scene, and was instantly able to pick up on what was going on.


I think you're missing my point; I know Zuckerberg is supposed to come across as an a**hole in the scene; my point is he didn't.

"I walked in half way through that scene, and was instantly able to pick up on what was going on."

-I understood the scene; I said the scene was not coherent; that's not the same thing. This really is a minor peeve I had with the movie; not the pinnacle of why I did not enjoy it.


As for the film not adhering to realism, that is not why I felt it was bad movie; there's nothing wrong with fiction that is well executed.

"The dialogue in this film is theatrical"? really????
- I found the absolute opposite; it bored me; really, really, bored me.

Maybe I'm just not the target audience, I'm not on facebook; or maybe the movie really picked up after I left.

Muffin top

Well done you. [/QUOTE]

Not really; I paid six Euro to see it; and I can never get that time back...I'm in danger of becoming bitter about it.

Liam O

Muffin top wrote: »

Erm, they were in a bar in NY... they have to, at least, be in their twenties; I being a student; also in my twenties; found the scene less then thrilling.They could have done numerous things to highlight Zuckerberg's lack of feeling for others aka apathy.

Harvard isn't in NY and he was 19 in that scene.

Muffin top

Liam O wrote: »

Harvard isn't in NY and he was 19 in that scene.

Pants! I retract my statement.

brianc27

he also says the only reason they were able to drink in there was because his bird was riding the door man at some point (or something like that)

Miguel_Sanchez

Muffin top wrote: »

Erm, they were in a bar in NY... they have to, at least, be in their twenties; I being a student; also in my twenties; found the scene less then thrilling.They could have done numerous things to highlight Zuckerberg's lack of feeling for others aka apathy.

You weren't really paying attention though were you?

Muffin top

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

You weren't really paying attention though were you?

Meh; possibly drunk.