The Social Network *MEGATHREAD*

Mike Litoris

I didn't think I'd like this but tought it was excellent. An interesting story portrayed very well.

Overheal

Feelgood wrote: »

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:

It's Harvard, not IT Carlow. The kind of people that get into Harvard are ... ambitious. The President of Harvard in the movie said the same thing basically, everyone there is working on something. It wasn't just classes and beers like it is in most other Universities. The students at Harvard and MIT and all these places are working on million dollar ideas.

Muffin Top wrote:

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.

It would have been blase and extremely formulaic; predictable.

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.

It was a based on true story movie. If it had done any of that I'm sure it would have entered deep into the realm of fabrication. You also are left to wonder why the film ends so suddenly, but oh well: it's reality. Unlike some made up character, you can email Mark Zuckerberg and ask him - he's a tangible person in meatspace.

More importantly, it was never intended as a biography of Zuckerberg, or of Eduardo, or Sean Parker. So to expect such was a failure on your part

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.

it actually reminded me coding. And like coding there aren't that many pauses and often the operation gets thrown around from function to function but it still remains in flow. What you get is the same conversation bouncing back between The Story (the flashback) and The Courtroom(s). I liked it.

I found the film really engaging but I could have sat there a little bit longer to see how the settlement played out. But I suppose it didn't make for that good a view. Maybe thats because they based the film off the videos recorded from the actual disposition? To try and recollect what happened in Settlement might have spoiled it. Theres also the fact that Eduardo's settlement was never publicized.

Really good film.

Rabidlamb

I love Fincher
I love Sorkin
I love the premise for the story

This should have been a no brainer to love but alas no.
The very definition of meh.

In fact if I were to look up meh in a dictionary I'd expect to see this movies poster.
It passed a couple of hours, 6/10.

FrostyJack

Just saw it yesterday and I have to say I don't see where the hype is coming from again, maybe I'm getting too old. It was a very good film and kept me focused throughout but will probably never watch it again. The only characters that had any class were the 2 twins, well one of them at least, though I'm sure you weren't meant to like them. Zucker and the rest were complete jackass's. I'm not sure the reason most people liked it is because it's about a someone who made billions from an almost simple idea, and this is most people's fantasy come true. 7/10 on first watch, 1/10 on subsequent viewings (Guesstimate).

KevArno

FrostyJack wrote: »

Just saw it yesterday and I have to say I don't see where the hype is coming from again, maybe I'm getting too old. It was a very good film and kept me focused throughout but will probably never watch it again. The only characters that had any class were the 2 twins, well one of them at least, though I'm sure you weren't meant to like them. Zucker and the rest were complete jackass's. I'm not sure the reason most people liked it is because it's about a someone who made billions from an almost simple idea, and this is most people's fantasy come true. 7/10 on first watch, 1/10 on subsequent viewings (Guesstimate).

Well I don't think anyone can really fault Eduardo in the film. He seems to escape very much unscathed, character wise.
And I don't understand how the twins can be seen as likeable. Regardless of Zuckerbergs obvious social problems, they really cannot be looked upon as just victims here. They are in one of the most competitive uni's in the world, and they are touting an idea, one that they cannot put into action. Zuckerberg just expanded on it and actually built the thing, and then the twins went into meltdown. And the idea of facebook only seems almost simple now, after the fact. It was revolutionary in terms of social networking on the internet.
It is interesting to note that they have also since been involved in lawsuits with their asian compatriot over similar intellectual property issues. Maybe they just need to be better business men, and protect their ideas more.

FrostyJack

KevArno wrote: »

Well I don't think anyone can really fault Eduardo in the film. He seems to escape very much unscathed, character wise.
And I don't understand how the twins can be seen as likeable. Regardless of Zuckerbergs obvious social problems, they really cannot be looked upon as just victims here. They are in one of the most competitive uni's in the world, and they are touting an idea, one that they cannot put into action. Zuckerberg just expanded on it and actually built the thing, and then the twins went into meltdown. And the idea of facebook only seems almost simple now, after the fact. It was revolutionary in terms of social networking on the internet.
It is interesting to note that they have also since been involved in lawsuits with their asian compatriot over similar intellectual property issues. Maybe they just need to be better business men, and protect their ideas more.

Eduardo snitched on Zuckerberg about cheating remember and also his jealousy of Sean Parker and stubborness of doing things his way, which probably why he got the short straw in the end. Also if it was left to him Facebook probably would not be as successful, so he was hardly perfect. I didn't mean to belittle their accomplishment, I meant it was a simple idea in retrospect, which everyone knows now. I also meant the twins were the best of a bad bunch, they had great work ethic, which is alien to most in this country. They were rich kids but you can hardly say they rested on their laurels, that was the point I was trying to make. Hope that clears it up.:D

KevArno

FrostyJack wrote: »

Eduardo snitched on Zuckerberg about cheating remember and also his jealousy of Sean Parker and stubborness of doing things his way, which probably why he got the short straw in the end. Also if it was left to him Facebook probably would not be as successful, so he was hardly perfect. I didn't mean to belittle their accomplishment, I meant it was a simple idea in retrospect, which everyone knows now. I also meant the twins were the best of a bad bunch, they had great work ethic, which is alien to most in this country. They were rich kids but you can hardly say they rested on their laurels, that was the point I was trying to make. Hope that clears it up.:D

They did rest on their laurels though. They had an idea and thought it entitled them to success. I have had plenty of fantastic ideas, but without the means to do something with them then it is nothing. Unless you can draft up you detailed documents and patent ideas, why would you ever go to someone with the ability to create what you want.

I think Eduardo was the complete victim. He may not have been the best thing for facebook, but that does not tarnish his character in the film. His issues with Parker were well founded, as he found out. Parker was was a very temperamental person, and Zukerberg just got drawn along with him, forgetting about his friend. The thing about cheating was something that came out as a slip, and was never made into an issue (in the film that is, I have no idea in real life).

Anyway, I just liked the film

Syferus

Overheal wrote: »

I found the film really engaging but I could have sat there a little bit longer to see how the settlement played out. But I suppose it didn't make for that good a view. Maybe thats because they based the film off the videos recorded from the actual disposition? To try and recollect what happened in Settlement might have spoiled it. Theres also the fact that Eduardo's settlement was never publicized.

Really good film.

I watched it for the first time last night (blu ray, US release!) and I'd almost entirely agree with what you said in the rest of your post. I wouldn't hesitate in going as far as to say it's the best 2010 film I've seen and would actually be surprised if it were not to get the Best Film Oscar -- for all that's worth -- and Fincher to collect the Best Director award his career to date surely deserves.

It ws everything it advertised itself to be; Fincher providing elegant and quietly beautiful direction (most reminiscent of Zodiac), Sorkin delivering a script full of his trademark pace, wit and detail and Reznor/Ross proving to an inspired choice and perfect fit to the subject matter of information technology and, somewhat ironically, isolation. Couple it with the story centered on the creation of perhaps the most important invention of a generation (like it or not, and I'm far from a Facebook fan) and the whole film just flowed wondrously.

It never takes the easy option -- the twins are portrayed with more sympathy than you might think they would be and Zuckerberg is, as the final line of the film says, ''not an asshole, but trying very hard to be one''. There's no pathomine here and the main characters are treated with a deftness and nuance that's hard to over-value.

Zuckerberg on reflection is a more relatable character than many would have you believe and indeed situations where inspiration and drive is caused at times by something as seemingly petty as spurned affection or feeling social insecure (the twins only letting him into the 'bike shed' when they tell him their idea, something he recalls to them directly in their pre-case meeting) is in reality more common than we would want ourselves to believe to be the case. Zuckerberg in actuality is never really seen enjoying the fruits of his labour; be it girls, money or admiration he's always a step removed from it - in the bar with Parker he's absent-mindedly studying the building's architecture while there a Victoria's Secret model sitting across the table from him -- alot of the traditional trappings of success hold very little interest for him. He achieves the huge success he aimed for, but it doesn't bring with it the level of personal satisfaction he perhaps imagined it would.

I suppose on a personal level I can relate to the character as I've at times got similarly negative reactions as Zuckerberg's character received from audiences even though rarely is any malicious intent involved. His behaviour is more an issue of filtering his thoughts rather than him being any worse a person than someone who is outwardly more amiable. Erica, his ex, directly addresses this when she tells him ''you don't have to say everything that comes into your head, you know''. I'd argue from personal experience it's less simple than that; at times I (and I'd imagine this goes for Zuckerberg's character as well) can see myself walking a perfectly normal conversation into a train wreck yet rarely can I stop my mind racing and apply a better filter to what comes out of my mouth. I'm not saying I'm brilliant but I do think in Zuckerberg's case it's a symptom of his genius rather than of a twisted or cruel nature. There always seems to be a trade-off for genius of any hue and rarely is a person in possession of that trait well adjusted.

To return to the point of the quote, though, I found the ending very apt; Zuckerberg is the creator of something that brings millions together and yet he ends up estranged, in different ways, from most of the people closest to him. In the end, he's just the same as any sad ex who adds their girlfriend to Facebook, hoping for some manner of reconciliation. He's no more immune to the charms (or poison) of his creation than anyone else and that goes some way to reminding you he is, despite everything, simply human.

the whole year inn

I thought it was only ok,I still don't get it,myspace was there before facebook,but zucerberg is regarded as a genius because of facebook.Comes across as a nerd who got lucky and is a backstabber to his friends,and is a robbing bastard.

I like Syferus last paragraph about him being like the rest of us(he is not special) but isnt he in a long term relationship with Priscilla Chan,why leave this out?They went through the trails which were true and Shaun character,twins all true,its just really annoys me,people will watch this and think this is fact
I still think this was a good watch.

Syferus

gob_smacked wrote: »

I thought it was only ok,I still don't get it,myspace was there before facebook,but zucerberg is regarded as a genius because of facebook.Comes across as a nerd who got lucky and is a backstabber to his friends,and is a robbing bastard.

I like Syferus last paragraph about him being like the rest of us(he is not special) but isnt he in a long term relationship with Priscilla Chan,why leave this out?They went through the trails which were true and Shaun character,twins all true,its just really annoys me,people will watch this and think this is fact
I still think this was a good watch.

I think the situation with MySpace and Friendster is well covered, though; Facebook succeeds because it mimics real-life social circles -- by default you have to add someone and be accepted to see the majority of their profile -- and it was carefully managed to be the anthesis of the Myspace stereotype; no blaring music, no gaudy backgrounds and being culturally cool, something MySpace even at it's peak could never fully grasp. It's questionable if Facebook could have exsisted if sites like MySpace didn't lay the ground work, but Facebook was to be the end-product of that chain of creation, somewhat like the relationship between Napster and BitTorrent. People remember who does something best, not who does something first.

Sorkin addressed alot of the complainants about factual accuracy with this: "I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling. What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy’s sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?"

I'd tend to agree - this is a brilliant film and it's on those terms I judge it, as I hope others would too.

the whole year inn

Yes I understand why facebook was a success and why it beats myspace just they make him out to be a genius for it,I guess he is like what Michael Dyson did with vacuum cleaners.

Fair enough with that statement but they played it like it was the truth,with the writhing at the end,people will think its the truth.I'm not denying that it was a great movie just a few things annoyed me.I thought 127 was far better tho.

S.M.B.

How was Middle Men then?

mikhail

gob_smacked wrote: »

Yes I understand why facebook was a success and why it beats myspace just they make him out to be a genius for it,I guess he is like what Michael Dyson did with vacuum cleaners.

Bill Gates didn't invent the (GUI-based) operating system, Henry Ford didn't invent the car (or the production line), James Joyce didn't invent the stream-of-consciousness narrative form, Eddison didn't invent the telephone or the lightbulb or electrical power and Marconi didn't invent radio.

x in the city

5 mins into this and I will knock it off, who is this guy.? fekkin hell the most annoying git I have seen on screen for ages, and he talks worse than a donegal accent mixed with helium, almost imposible to understand.

Basq

x in the city wrote: »

5 mins into this and I will knock it off, who is this guy.? fekkin hell the most annoying git I have seen on screen for ages, and he talks worse than a donegal accent mixed with helium, almost imposible to understand.

Ironic sentence is ironic..

pickarooney

I saw this last night. It would have been a pretty decent lifetime movie of the week but I can't for the life of me figure out how it's considered a great film, let alone worthy of an award of any kind.

S.M.B.

Well then you either failed to overcome some negative pre-conceptions you might have brought into the movie, you watched a completely different movie than the one I watched, you cannot appreciate something you don't "like" or else you know absolutely nothing about what makes a quality movie.

Syferus

I wouldn't put it in such harsh terms (if only to avoid verbal ping pong, honestly), but it's hard to not appreciate the artistry in the direction, script, score and Eisenberg's acting particularly. I'd love to see him with the Best Actor Oscar, even though Collin Firth's got all the buzz for that award, but given The Social Network is getting traction for its other nominations it'll probably result in a convenient vote splitting exercise at Eisenberg's expense.

thebostoncrab

Picked it up on DVD today, and I was taken back by how much I didn't enjoy the film.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the cast who were perfect (Eisenberg deserves an Oscar) and the soundtrack is great, but the way the film was shot and brought together...I dunno, it was just missing something. At times it felt like Fincher was trying too hard with everything and it just felt hollow really.

I mean, that opening scene was done so poorly. I get what Fincher was trying to do, but **** me it was pulled off in the wrong way. It was so hard to keep up with what was happening and just put me in a bad form wth the film. And that nightclub scene, ok nightclubs are hardly a spot for a quiet chat, but I'm not there so let me here the dialouge. And the ending was so rushed and left like a cop out. All it would have took were 5 extra minutes to bring everything to a visual end, but instead we are given a few lines of text.

This film could have been in a leauge of its own, but it came across as something that believed it was being intelligent instead of being so.

pickarooney

thebostoncrab wrote: »

This film could have been in a leauge of its own, but it came across as something that believed it was being intelligent instead of being so.

Just like everything else Aaron Sorkin has ever written then.

TrustedApple

To me it was a great film the lads I went to see it with said it was great to but it needed a extra 30 mins to give it a real ending then Mark waiting on his laptop seeing if his ex girlfriend will add him on Facebook not like one of my EXs blocking me on Facebook

Kev_ps3

saw this last night, its ok, overhyped imo

S.M.B.

thebostoncrab wrote: »

Picked it up on DVD today, and I was taken back by how much I didn't enjoy the film.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the cast who were perfect (Eisenberg deserves an Oscar) and the soundtrack is great, but the way the film was shot and brought together...I dunno, it was just missing something. At times it felt like Fincher was trying too hard with everything and it just felt hollow really.

I mean, that opening scene was done so poorly. I get what Fincher was trying to do, but **** me it was pulled off in the wrong way. It was so hard to keep up with what was happening and just put me in a bad form wth the film. And that nightclub scene, ok nightclubs are hardly a spot for a quiet chat, but I'm not there so let me here the dialouge. And the ending was so rushed and left like a cop out. All it would have took were 5 extra minutes to bring everything to a visual end, but instead we are given a few lines of text.

This film could have been in a leauge of its own, but it came across as something that believed it was being intelligent instead of being so.

These were two of my favourite parts of the entire film.

PhiloCypher

Just picked this up on blueray I enjoyed it but it didn't knock my socks off as one would have expected considering the plaudits it recieved .

That said it did change the way I thought about facebook so I guess it did leave a mark(if you will pardon the pun;))

Question: Mark and his Roomies are all coders right ?, so why did he need Eduardo to give him a algorithm for facemash isn't Eduardo a Business major ?

mikhail

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Question: Mark and his Roomies are all coders right ?, so why did he need Eduardo to give him a algorithm for facemash isn't Eduardo a Business major ?

Was that Eduardo? I forget. He asked for the ranking algorithm for chess, which a programmer mightn't know offhand but a chess player might. (I say this as someone who is both.) That scene was strongly sourced from Zuckerberg's blog posts from that night (you see him writing some of these in the film), so perhaps Eduardo really did give him the algorithm. Alternatively, Sorkin may just have been giving the character something to say, or handing a little exposition to a character who might otherwise been a little underused in the scene.

bonerm

Watched it tonight. Wasn't expecting much so it was better than I hoped for without being spectacular.

One minor thing I think they could have done was made it a bit clearer tho that the "Sean Parker" character was an actual separate person to Shawn Fanning. I mistakenly spent the whole movie presuming that's who they were portraying.