Support NeoGAF

[Solo]

Sarcasm?

? No sarcasm. It would be pretty easy to glean sarcasm from my post if it were there. I am more hyped to see LMI than TSN, although I will be seeing The Social Network first.

Im seeing TSN because its a Fincher movie. Im seeing LMI because apparently a miracle has happened and the director of the awful Cloverfield has supposedly done justice to Let The Right One In and made a great movie. Nobody expected that. Lest we forget GAF unanimously shitting all over LMI when it was announced.

 

[Littleberu]

jesus

no you can't. the things you like are good.

Sorry, what? No. I like Small Soldiers, but it's a terrible movie. It's factually a terrible movie. I'm not talking about "good" in a "taste" kind of way.

 

[Expendable.]

Im actually more hyped to check out Let Me In - I knew a Fincher outing would be great, but overwhelming praise for a remake (that no one wanted, no less) of a 2-year old sacred cow catches my interest a lot more.

ugh, Let Me In is a chore if you adore the original. He does a few things different but I wish he had the balls to not make it nearly shot for shot.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

jesus

no you can't. the things you like are good.

False. It's perfectly possible to like something and acknowledge that it is not, objectively, any good. Plenty of people love Ed Wood movies, but they are universally acknowledged as terrible. That's a more extreme example, but it's perfectly possible to "like" something on a personal level while simultaneously looking at it objectively and trying to discern quality. I really like Synecdoche, New York because of my own philosophical alignment with it, but I acknowledge that it's kind of a mess of a movie in a lot of ways and that it simply does not hold a candle to, for example, the films of Ingmar Bergman, which I don't "like" as much but which I acknowledge as being better movies.

 

[brianjones]

ugh, Let Me In is a chore if you adore the original. He does a few things different but I wish he had the balls to not make it nearly shot for shot.

thats all i could think when watching the trailer and commercials.. "this is the same movie"

 

[Blader]

I wonder if people bitched over Citizen Kane's "subject matter" before it came out.

Oh wait, there wasn't the internet back then.

Nobody knew about Citizen Kane before it came out. :lol

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

The reviews that say 'the citizen kane' of ____ just remind me of metroid prime

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

1. Trent Reznor Talks Music, Inspiration, And ‘The Social Network’ With Kevin & Bean (Audio and Text interview): http://kroq.radio.com/2010/09/30/tr...ation-and-the-social-network-with-kevin-bean/

2. Justin Timberlake and David Fincher on Trent Reznor's 'Social Network' score http://music-mix.ew.com/2010/09/30/reznor-social-network/

“The score is the best part about this movie,” says Timberlake, who plays Napster co-founder Sean Parker in the film. “[It's] the most unique and dark and ominous and emotional score that I’ve heard in so long. And if [Reznor] doesn’t get some sort of accolade for that, I will think it’s a travesty.”

Now all we need is JT and TR collab and my life would be weirdly complete... weirdly...

 

[Macattk15]

Reznor is a cool dude.

I bought the soundtrack, it is quite good, though I do love me some NIN.

 

[blame space]

"things I like are not good!"

come on guys, stand up for your taste and opinions. there is no objective "good". that's stupid.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

*stretches out*

So yeahhhhh.

I just saw this, followed by a Q&A with Aaron Sorkin.

First of all, the movie is, obviously, phenomenal. You might think with all the reviews that it would be overtly, sort of canonically profound. But it's even better than that. It's somehow casually profound. It's not saying anything other than this is a bunch of people, caught up in each others' lives and aspirations. But it is incredibly profound. When you see it, and it's over (and you try to figure exactly how much of the film's budget went to securing the song over the closing credits because holy shit) think about the first scene and the last scene and what that comparison says to you about the people in this movie.

And also, I am so glad I bought the soundtrack for three bones but didn't listen to it, because it's really something you need to experience in context and be constantly surprised by. Like the movie and the performances in the movie, it is incredibly subtle, but also just ridiculously pretty.

The Q&A was kind of a blur of insight (every single thing in the movie is based on laywer-perused fact), but really, it can't be overstated how amazing it is just to see one of your creative idols just...thinking in front of you.

But yeah, some of you are probably seeing it right now. So soon you'll understand what I'm getting at.

 

[Buttonbasher]

*stretches out*

So yeahhhhh.

I just saw this, followed by a Q&A with Aaron Sorkin.

First of all, the movie is, obviously, phenomenal. You might think with all the reviews that it would be overtly, sort of canonically profound. But it's even better than that. It's somehow casually profound. It's not saying anything other than this is a bunch of people, caught up in each others' lives and aspirations. But it is incredibly profound. When you see it, and it's over (and you try to figure exactly how much of the film's budget went to securing the song over the closing credits because holy shit) think about the first scene and the last scene and what that comparison says to you about the people in this movie.

And also, I am so glad I bought the soundtrack for three bones but didn't listen to it, because it's really something you need to experience in context and be constantly surprised by. Like the movie and the performances in the movie, it is incredibly subtle, but also just ridiculously pretty.

The Q&A was kind of a blur of insight (every single thing in the movie is based on laywer-perused fact), but really, it can't be overstated how amazing it is just to see one of your creative idols just...thinking in front of you.

But yeah, some of you are probably seeing it right now. So soon you'll understand what I'm getting at.

Sounds great. I wish I was seeing it now, but tomorrow afternoon should be great.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Sounds great. I wish I was seeing it now, but tomorrow afternoon should be great.

Oh, and the "big special effect" is absolutely fucking mindblowing if you ever stop to think about it, not just because of the tech, but because of the performance that constantly sells it.

And god damn, visually this movie is just gorgeous.

 

[Expendable.]

yeah, seeing this a 3rd time this weekend.

how fucking awesome was the

Spoiler

coding/partying contrast

Benjie? Mind blown both times.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

yeah, seeing this a 3rd time this weekend.

how fucking awesome was the

Spoiler

coding/partying contrast

Benjie? Mind blown both times.

Oh my GOD. For reals.

Sorkin talked about how

Spoiler

he was amazed at how Fincher and the music and the editing turned it into like a bank heist sequence

.

 

[RustyNails]

Honestly, from the bottom of my heart, I ask this question. Why is Armond White such a big dog in film critic circles? He's the head of some critic board in NYC too.

He said The Takers is better than Oceans' series. Praised Resident Evil 3D. Thinks Grown Ups is a good movie. Does this man take some PCP before watching movies?

 

[oatmeal]

Okay, I saw it again tonight...and my suspicion is confirmed:

THEY DUBBED ONE OF THE WINKELVOSS'S LINES.

Spoiler

When the brother who wasn't on board to 'crush them' finally does after losing the race, he clearly says "Let's friggin' destroy them" or something to that effect. But you can tell it's dubbed in, and he originally said 'fuck', and I'm assuming they had to dub over because their rating probably would have been an R with that extra Fuck in there.

It was as great the second time, though. Theater loved it.

 

[Expendable.]

Okay, I saw it again tonight...and my suspicion is confirmed:

THEY DUBBED ONE OF THE WINKELVOSS'S LINES.

Spoiler

When the brother who wasn't on board to 'crush them' finally does after losing the race, he clearly says "Let's friggin' destroy them" or something to that effect. But you can tell it's dubbed in, and he originally said 'fuck', and I'm assuming they had to dub over because their rating probably would have been an R with that extra Fuck in there.

It was as great the second time, though. Theater loved it.

Yeah, I actually noticed a few things like that. It looks technically precise visually but some of the sync seemed slightly off.

 

[oatmeal]

Yeah, I actually noticed a few things like that. It looks technically precise visually but some of the sync seemed slightly off.

Film also makes me want to pick up a tilt n shift lens...post haste!

 

[Expendable.]

Film also makes me want to pick up a tilt n shift lens...post haste!

I've done it in Photoshop with still photos, but is this the first film to use that?

 

[TheDrizzlerJ11]

Awesome movie and since I didn't have to pay for the early screening I will be seeing this again in theaters. The acting was phenomenal.

 

[Kevtones]

*stretches out*

So yeahhhhh.

I just saw this, followed by a Q&A with Aaron Sorkin.

First of all, the movie is, obviously, phenomenal. You might think with all the reviews that it would be overtly, sort of canonically profound. But it's even better than that. It's somehow casually profound. It's not saying anything other than this is a bunch of people, caught up in each others' lives and aspirations. But it is incredibly profound. When you see it, and it's over (and you try to figure exactly how much of the film's budget went to securing the song over the closing credits because holy shit) think about the first scene and the last scene and what that comparison says to you about the people in this movie.

And also, I am so glad I bought the soundtrack for three bones but didn't listen to it, because it's really something you need to experience in context and be constantly surprised by. Like the movie and the performances in the movie, it is incredibly subtle, but also just ridiculously pretty.

The Q&A was kind of a blur of insight (every single thing in the movie is based on laywer-perused fact), but really, it can't be overstated how amazing it is just to see one of your creative idols just...thinking in front of you.

But yeah, some of you are probably seeing it right now. So soon you'll understand what I'm getting at.

Jeff Goldsmith?

 

[WrenchNinja]

Did/will Zuckerburg see the movie?

 

[oatmeal]

I've done it in Photoshop with still photos, but is this the first film to use that?

Naw, it's been used a lot. A DP friend I have did a lot of aerial stuff with them for a feature he worked on.

With the stuff you can do in post, it is kind of pointless to use a TS lens.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Did/will Zuckerburg see the movie?

Most definitely he will.

Saw the movie. Freaking awesome direction, great use of music, great dialogues, alot of geeky moments and all in all (like the change or not) it does defines the decade where internet took over everything. No matter how much you hate Facebook, this movie is not about Facebook. It's about a guy creating something great that others think they created and how everything human about the characters go down the drain when money and power is given to them.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Most definitely he will.

He's said he won't watch it.

Man, I can't wait for this movie. 4 weeks to go

 

[Expendable.]

Did/will Zuckerburg see the movie?

multiple people tweeted a few nights ago they saw him at a screening.

 

[Socreges]

Armond delivers. It really is fascinating reading his reviews. I don't think I'm quite smart enough to describe exactly what's so wrong with them, though. He seems to take a lot of care crafting sentences with complex words in tandem that amount to interesting-sounding sentences -- but in writing them is obviously oblivious to the fact that they often make little sense or sound very awkward. He's so immersed in his own world, completely unconcerned with his audience; maybe even hoping to spite and exclude them.

Armond White is a douchebag, so is anyone who uses Rotten Tomatoes as a barometer of what makes a movie "good".

Learn to think for yourself monkeys.

You think David Fincher gives a fuck about Rotten Tomatoes?

Who actually does this? RT can be an excellent indicator of a movie's quality, so following it makes sense.

I also don't understand how the Fincher comment is related.

armond seems upset mainly because someone made a movie that mythologises an autistic internet phenomenon other than himself

:lol

 

[GDJustin]

FYI - the movie is a mostly fictionalized history of Facebook. I'm not saying it isn't amazing (I haven't seen it). I'm just saying it's not very true to the actual facts. I know this because the film is loosely based on a book that also wasn't true to the facts.

If you're interested in the actual story, David Kilpatrick wrote an AMAZING book about Zuckerberg and the earliest years of Facebook:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439102112/?tag=neogaf0e-20

The book is great. It takes a very even-handed look at Zuckerberg, and Kilpatrick somehow was given much more access than anyone else ever has gotten. Zuck comes off as a huge fucking prick in some parts, but then there are other parts where he is very sympathetic. One section that stuck with me is when he broke down crying in a bathroom when FB was first being funded because of how much pressure he was under.

Crazy story.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

I'm kind of weirded out by the constant declarations that the subject matter is uninteresting, when the subject matter at hand is hardly anything new and has been found interesting for very, very long time. By that, I mean the subject matter quite obviously isn't Facebook itself. In Sorkin's words, it's "the themes [of] ... [f]riendship, jealousy, loyalty, power, love, betrayal" underlying its creation and success. His words and Fincher's lens have captured that tale and likely brought it forth with adroit quality. Again, Sorkin says it best: "From a plot standpoint, you could’ve told the same story about the invention of a really good toaster."

 

[smokeymicpot]

Seeing it at 12:30. Can not wait. I love having fridays off.

 

[Littleberu]

FYI - the movie is a mostly fictionalized history of Facebook. I'm not saying it isn't amazing (I haven't seen it). I'm just saying it's not very true to the actual facts. I know this because the film is loosely based on a book that also wasn't true to the facts.

Aaron Sorkin came out numerous times saying it is not a fiction. It's a non-fiction about the conflicting tales of those of were involved in the creation of Facebook.

Like he said, there was 3 different declaration given at the same time. At any given times, two of those are bound to be false. He played with it, very elegantly.

Go see the movie before thinking anything about if it's true or not.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

FYI - the movie is a mostly fictionalized history of Facebook. I'm not saying it isn't amazing (I haven't seen it). I'm just saying it's not very true to the actual facts. I know this because the film is loosely based on a book that also wasn't true to the facts.

If you're interested in the actual story, David Kilpatrick wrote an AMAZING book about Zuckerberg and the earliest years of Facebook:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439102112/?tag=neogaf0e-20

The book is great. It takes a very even-handed look at Zuckerberg, and Kilpatrick somehow was given much more access than anyone else ever has gotten. Zuck comes off as a huge fucking prick in some parts, but then there are other parts where he is very sympathetic. One section that stuck with me is when he broke down crying in a bathroom when FB was first being funded because of how much pressure he was under.

Crazy story.

This is not true. There is a difference between dramatized and fictionalized. Sorkin himself explained that he was tasked with writing the movie after the book's proposal was bought by a publisher. So in reality, the book and the movie were being written simultaneously, with both writers occasionally comparing notes but, most critically, doing their own research independent of one another. Everything in the film has been verified by a legal team, in Sorkin's words, "as large as the Green Bay Packers".

However, naturally, many of the verified facts are currently, legally, "in dispute" by various parties. It's why Sorkin has Zuckerberg's

Spoiler

first words when we first cut to the depositions be "That's not what happened."

 

[Blader]

Did/will Zuckerburg see the movie?

He was spotted at a screening last week, if Twitter is to be believed.

 

[jax (old)]

I dislike the lead actor in about just everything he's in but when I saw the trailer for this. I wanted to watch it. Then I later found out that its fincher. I HAVE TO WATCH THIS.

/sold.

 

[Raydeen]

Hope it doesn't send me to sleep like Zodiac.

 

[-PXG-]

I don't know. I don't like how this film glorifies and romanticizes a God damn website, of all things. Sure, Facebook is huge, but really, what has it really done? I use it, and I bet a lot of people ITT use it too. But let's be honest here:

It's a massive time sink that adds little to no productive activity to your day. It's a virtual environment that allows people, with too much time on their hands, to waste their potential by living vicariously through other people. It creates a false sense that people and the world care about you, when truthfully, that is hardly the case at all. It's an escape and, unfortunatetly, a service held dear to a lot of people. There is something insidious about it.

On the surface, it seems like a nice application, so that end users can connect with peers and old friends. But like with most mainstream technology, Facebook was designed to suck you in. It was designed to make you think it's useful. It was designed to make you think it's making you more productive. It was created to make you feel obligated to inadvertently relinquish your own privacy. It was made to dumb you down.

So no, I don't give a fuck about Mark Zuckerberg and his apparent wealth and rise to power. I'm not impressed he made a website that has a 500 million users. I don't put people on pedestals. To me, celebrating some dude who made a website, that has almost single handedly dumbed down a generation, isn't worth getting excited over.

But hey, ignoring the subject matter, it might be a good film.

/rant

 

[ManDudeChild]

I understand the social impact of "social networking", and do find the story of Zuckerberg mildly interesting from some pieces I've read. But I have no interest in seeing this movie as I'd rather have something that doesn't have me walking away going, "so um... what isn't 'thriller' material here?" I mean it's cool ppl like to see stories, and how lives intertwine, and I like that too but in this case I really have a hard time not instantly rolling my eyes at the concept itself. Pirates of Silicon Valley I can get on board... though there have been reported historical inaccuracies, yet this not so much. That being said, I'm sure it's a watchable film and am not going to hate on people that enjoy this film. It's just not for me.

[edited: because quoting the above was pointless in hindsight]

 

[Littleberu]

I don't know. I don't like how this film glorifies and romanticizes a God damn website, of all things. Sure, Facebook is huge, but really, what has it really done? I use it, and I bet a lot of people ITT use it too. But let's be honest here:

It's a massive time sink that adds little to no productive activity to your day. It's a virtual environment that allows people, with too much time on their hands, to waste their potential by living vicariously through other people. It creates a false sense that people and the world care about you, when truthfully, that is hardly the case at all. It's an escape and, unfortunatetly, a service held dear to a lot of people. There is something insidious about it.

On the surface, it seems like a nice application, so that end users can connect with peers and old friends. But like with most mainstream technology, Facebook was designed to suck you in. It was designed to make you think it's useful. It was designed to make you think it's making you more productive. It was created to make you feel obligated to inadvertently relinquish your own privacy. It was made to dumb you down.

So no, I don't give a fuck about Mark Zuckerberg and his apparent wealth and rise to power. I'm not impressed he made a website that has a 500 million users. I don't put people on pedestals. To me, celebrating some dude who made a website, that has almost single handedly dumbed down a generation, isn't worth getting excited over.

But hey, ignoring the subject matter, it might be a good film.

/rant

Good god, you sound like those christian talking about Harry Potter.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

I don't know. I don't like how this film glorifies and romanticizes a God damn website, of all things. Sure, Facebook is huge, but really, what has it really done? I use it, and I bet a lot of people ITT use it too. But let's be honest here:

It's a massive time sink that adds little to no productive activity to your day. It's a virtual environment that allows people, with too much time on their hands, to waste their potential by living vicariously through other people. It creates a false sense that people and the world care about you, when truthfully, that is hardly the case at all. It's an escape and, unfortunatetly, a service held dear to a lot of people. There is something insidious about it.

On the surface, it seems like a nice application, so that end users can connect with peers and old friends. But like with most mainstream technology, Facebook was designed to suck you in. It was designed to make you think it's useful. It was designed to make you think it's making you more productive. It was created to make you feel obligated to inadvertently relinquish your own privacy. It was made to dumb you down.

So no, I don't give a fuck about Mark Zuckerberg and his apparent wealth and rise to power. I'm not impressed he made a website that has a 500 million users. I don't put people on pedestals. To me, celebrating some dude who made a website, that has almost single handedly dumbed down a generation, isn't worth getting excited over.

But hey, ignoring the subject matter, it might be a good film.

/rant

The movie is not about what Facebook does for us or to us, it's about what Facebook has done to or for several people involved in its creation.

 

[Duality]

I don't know. I don't like how this film glorifies and romanticizes a God damn website, of all things. Sure, Facebook is huge, but really, what has it really done? I use it, and I bet a lot of people ITT use it too. But let's be honest here:

It's a massive time sink that adds little to no productive activity to your day. It's a virtual environment that allows people, with too much time on their hands, to waste their potential by living vicariously through other people. It creates a false sense that people and the world care about you, when truthfully, that is hardly the case at all. It's an escape and, unfortunatetly, a service held dear to a lot of people. There is something insidious about it.

On the surface, it seems like a nice application, so that end users can connect with peers and old friends. But like with most mainstream technology, Facebook was designed to suck you in. It was designed to make you think it's useful. It was designed to make you think it's making you more productive. It was created to make you feel obligated to inadvertently relinquish your own privacy. It was made to dumb you down.

So no, I don't give a fuck about Mark Zuckerberg and his apparent wealth and rise to power. I'm not impressed he made a website that has a 500 million users. I don't put people on pedestals. To me, celebrating some dude who made a website, that has almost single handedly dumbed down a generation, isn't worth getting excited over.

But hey, ignoring the subject matter, it might be a good film.

/rant

*slow clap*

I'll watch it anyway.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

Facebook single handedly dumbed down a generation? Give me a break.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

The idea that this movie "celebrates" Mark Zuckerberg is giving me a slight case of the giggles. It's about him, among other people, but it certainly does not exist to put him on any kind of pedestal.

 

[-PXG-]

The movie is not about what Facebook does for us or to us, it's about what Facebook has done to or for several people involved in its creation.

I know that. But why should I care about Mark Zuckerberg? Hell, why should I care about Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? They're just dudes who got successful selling tech bullshit. As evil and twisted as he was, Adolph Hilter was a more interesting person. What he did was waaaaaaaaaay more profound and effected people a lot more than today's business tychoons could ever imagine.

I just don't want people getting things twisted and celebrating these people, and their companies too much.

 

[jax (old)]

I don't know. I don't like how this film glorifies and romanticizes a God damn website, of all things. Sure, Facebook is huge, but really, what has it really done? I use it, and I bet a lot of people ITT use it too. But let's be honest here:

It's a massive time sink that adds little to no productive activity to your day. It's a virtual environment that allows people, with too much time on their hands, to waste their potential by living vicariously through other people. It creates a false sense that people and the world care about you, when truthfully, that is hardly the case at all. It's an escape and, unfortunatetly, a service held dear to a lot of people. There is something insidious about it.

On the surface, it seems like a nice application, so that end users can connect with peers and old friends. But like with most mainstream technology, Facebook was designed to suck you in. It was designed to make you think it's useful. It was designed to make you think it's making you more productive. It was created to make you feel obligated to inadvertently relinquish your own privacy. It was made to dumb you down.

So no, I don't give a fuck about Mark Zuckerberg and his apparent wealth and rise to power. I'm not impressed he made a website that has a 500 million users. I don't put people on pedestals. To me, celebrating some dude who made a website, that has almost single handedly dumbed down a generation, isn't worth getting excited over.

But hey, ignoring the subject matter, it might be a good film.

/rant

You don't get it? He changed how we people interelate. Its one your mobile, its on your pc, it everywhere.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

I know that. But why should I care about Mark Zuckerberg? Hell, why should I care about Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? They're just dudes who got successful selling tech bullshit. As evil and twisted as he was, Adolph Hilter was a more interesting person. What he did was waaaaaaaaaay more profound and effected people a lot more than today's business tychoons could ever imagine.

I just don't want people getting things twisted and celebrating these people, and their companies too much.

This movie isn't celebrating a single fucking person. It's about as "epic" as a trip to the library. It's a relentlessly low key exploration of like six people and their petty greed and insecurities. If it's celebrating their lives than me taking the subway to work is celebrating the lives of everyone whose shoes I scuff on accident.

Mark Zuckerberg isn't interesting because he invented Facebook, he's interesting because he's a hurt, sad dude that had no way to connect with people, so he invented one. People said the same shit about telephones and televisions and the fucking printing press, and yet if a talented storyteller told their personal stories, it wouldn't be celebrating their lives, it would just be an interesting story to tell.

It's about invention, not what he invented.

The only thing Facebook really contributes to the movie is giving it the sickest logo since Saul Bass.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

I just don't want people getting things twisted and celebrating these people, and their companies too much.

Why do you care? Just don't see the movie.

I haven't even seen it but from everything I've bothered to read I at least know it doesn't 'celebrate' Mark Zuckerberg.

 

[hitsugi]

Going to see this tonight.. have no idea of how it could be so amazing but I'm looking forward to it

 

[CajoleJuice]

I at least know it doesn't 'celebrate' Mark Zuckerberg.

Armond White doesn't know this.

 

[YuriLowell]

I know that. But why should I care about Mark Zuckerberg? Hell, why should I care about Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? They're just dudes who got successful selling tech bullshit. As evil and twisted as he was, Adolph Hilter was a more interesting person. What he did was waaaaaaaaaay more profound and effected people a lot more than today's business tychoons could ever imagine.

I just don't want people getting things twisted and celebrating these people, and their companies too much.

Then don't see the movie if you don't care. There is no reason to care at all about alot of people that movies are made about.