• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Social Network [OT]

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
YuriLowell said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why should I care about Max Fischer or Quiz Kid Donny Smith or like anyone ever in movies ever.
 
G

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
BenjaminBirdie said:
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
first words when we first cut to the depositions be "That's not what happened."
Click to expand...

Littleberu said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry guys, but this just isn't correct. I'm not passing ANY sort of judgement on the movie at all. All I'm saying is that it is telling a story - it is not a portrayal of actual events. Read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-movie-zuckerberg-ims

I've been following the story for years, back before the book The Accidental Billionaires was even optioned to be turned into a movie. Everyone within tech / silicon valley circles knows that The Accidental Billionaires is not a true portrayal of events. It's not even up for debate. The author Mizrich had FB co-founder Saverin as a "consultant" on the book, but had zero access to Zuckerberg himself. So imagine how it turned out.

I can't find the article now, but I read a piece that explained that in the movie, Zuckerberg interacts regularly with some people he has never even met in real life.

Again, I'm passing NO judgement on the film. All I'm saying is that the book The Facebook Effect by Kilpatrick is widely regarded by EVERYONE as an amazing read, and it's clear he got much deeper access to everyone that anyone had gotten before. Kilpatrick is a well-regarded tech journalist:

http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/06/facebook-david-kirkpatrick/

If you read Silicon Alley Insider or Mashable or TechCrunch, or attend any tech/Palo Alto conferences, you would know that The Social Network is a work of fiction. There's never even really been any debate about it. People already knew this about the script, and about the book the script is based on.

The ONLY thing I'm saying is that Kilpatrick's book is an amazing, dramatic, and balanced read, for anyone that would like to know the truth behind Facebook's early years.

Edit: Excerpt from The Facebook Effect that I discussed on the last page:

That night Accel’s co-managing partner, Jim Breyer, a Silicon Valley heavyweight who’s also a director of Wal-Mart, hosted a dinner for Facebook’s leaders at the elegant Village Pub near Palo Alto. The Pub is known for its wine list, and Breyer, a connoisseur, ordered a $400 bottle of Quilceda Creek Cabernet. Zuckerberg, still only 20, ordered a Sprite. Breyer was doing everything he could to loosen Zuckerberg up. But Zuckerberg remained uncomfortable about something. Then he started to tune out, Matt Cohler noticed.

Zuckerberg went to the bathroom and didn’t return for a surprisingly long time. Cohler got up to see if everything was okay. There, on the floor of the men’s room with his head down, was Zuckerberg. And he was crying. “Through his tears he was saying, ‘This is wrong. I can’t do this. I gave my word!’ ” recalls Cohler. “He was just crying his eyes out, bawling. So I said, ‘Why don’t you just call Don up and ask him what he thinks?’ ” Zuckerberg took a while to compose himself and returned to the table.

The next morning he did call Graham. “Don, I haven’t talked to you since we agreed on terms, and since then I’ve had a much higher offer from a venture capital firm out here. And I feel I have a moral dilemma,” Zuckerberg began.

Graham was disappointed, but he was also impressed. “I just thought to myself, ‘Wow, for 20 years old, that is impressive — he’s not calling to tell me he’s taking the other guy’s money. He’s calling me to talk it out.’ ” Graham knew that even his first offer was very high for a company so tiny and so young. “Mark, does the money matter to you?” Graham asked. Zuckerberg said it did. It could, he went on, be the one thing that could prevent Facebook from going into the red or having to borrow money. “Mark, I’ll release you from your moral dilemma,” said Graham. “Go ahead and take their money and develop the company, and all the best.” For Zuckerberg it was a huge relief. And it further increased his respect and admiration for Graham. (Zuckerberg eventually asked the publisher to take a seat on the Facebook board.)
Click to expand...

Edit2: Just to clear up any confusion, The Social Network is based on The Accidental Billionaires. An inaccurate book about the history of Facebook, written via access to the ousted FB co-founder Saverin.

The book I'm talking about is The Facebook Effect, which tells the true story of FB's founding and is an astonishing read.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Fuck BBC radio!

I was listening to it this morning and in the movies section, the guy spoiled the first 20 or 30 minutes of the movie!
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
GDJustin said:
Edit2: Just to clear up any confusion, The Social Network is based on The Accidental Billionaires. An inaccurate book about the history of Facebook, written via access to the ousted FB co-founder Saverin.
Click to expand...

No it is most certainly not. As I stated explicitly, from the writer of the film himself, it was written independently and simultaneously to the actual writing of the book. It is based not only on access to Saverin, but several sources who continue to remain anonymous and extensive legal transcripts.

Whether or not it is accurate to what Zuckerberg said/experienced is up to those facts being still in dispute, but the film itself admits that and Sorkin said his inspiration in handling the conflicting accounts was to base the approach on Rashomon's.
 
G

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
BenjaminBirdie said:
No it is most certainly not. As I stated explicitly, from the writer of the film himself, it was written independently and simultaneously to the actual writing of the book. It is based not only on access to Saverin, but several sources who continue to remain anonymous and extensive legal transcripts.

Whether or not it is accurate to what Zuckerberg said/experienced is up to those facts being still in dispute, but the film itself admits that and Sorkin said his inspiration in handling the conflicting accounts was to base the approach on Rashomon's.
Click to expand...

It's not up for dispute. Did you click on the links I supplied? In silicon Valley circles the movie is openly known as a work of fiction. Which is fine. All the best movies are fiction, right?

I want to re-emphasize that I'm not passing any judgement on the movie. I'm just strongly suggesting that people that saw the movie and are now interested in this subject matter should read The Facebook Effect because it is a great read. And people wouldn't be interested in the book if they thought it was just a re-telling of what they had just seen on screen.

It paints Zuckerberg as a ruthless asshole pretty much as often as Accidental Billionaires does, but it also paints him as an actual human being, who was dealing with things at 20-21 years old that most people couldn't handle at any point in their life.

Edit: http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
GDJustin said:
It's not up for dispute. Did you click on the links I supplied? In silicon Valley circles the movie is openly known as a work of fiction. Which is fine. All the best movies are fiction, right?

I want to re-emphasize that I'm not passing any judgement on the movie. I'm just strongly suggesting that people that saw the movie and are now interested in this subject matter should read The Facebook Effect because it is a great read. And people wouldn't be interested in the book if they thought it was just a re-telling of what they had just seen on screen.

It paints Zuckerberg as a ruthless asshole pretty much as often as Accidental Billionaires does, but it also paints him as an actual human being, who was dealing with things at 20-21 years old that most people couldn't handle at any point in their life.

Edit: http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
Click to expand...

I was mostly controverting your assessment that if Accidental Billionaires is false, than the movie is. They are nearly completely seperate entities.
 
dragonfart28

dragonfart28

Banned
Hmm.. Not saying this is a bad movie or anything, but is it really that compelling to watch a movie about the deception between youthful entrepreneurs? Does Kotick get a cameo in this film?
 
L

Littleberu

Banned
GDJustin said:
It paints Zuckerberg as a ruthless asshole pretty much as often as Accidental Billionaires does, but it also paints him as an actual human being, who was dealing with things at 20-21 years old that most people couldn't handle at any point in their life.

Edit: http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
Click to expand...

That's what the movie's doing, too. I assume you haven't seen it yet ; come back here when you do.

Hmm.. Not saying this is a bad movie or anything, but is it really that compelling to watch a movie about college entrepreneurship?
Click to expand...

98% of 123 critics seems to think so.
 
dragonfart28

dragonfart28

Banned
BenjaminBirdie said:
Obviously it is, or no one would be saying they liked it.
Click to expand...

Well is it the premise itself or the acting/filmography? Because deception at this level of business isn't really anything novel.
 
S

Spire

Subconscious Brolonging
GDJustin said:
It's not up for dispute. Did you click on the links I supplied? In silicon Valley circles the movie is openly known as a work of fiction. Which is fine. All the best movies are fiction, right?

I want to re-emphasize that I'm not passing any judgement on the movie. I'm just strongly suggesting that people that saw the movie and are now interested in this subject matter should read The Facebook Effect because it is a great read. And people wouldn't be interested in the book if they thought it was just a re-telling of what they had just seen on screen.

It paints Zuckerberg as a ruthless asshole pretty much as often as Accidental Billionaires does, but it also paints him as an actual human being, who was dealing with things at 20-21 years old that most people couldn't handle at any point in their life.

Edit: http://www.slate.com/id/2269250/
Click to expand...

You really need to see the movie before you make any more statements about what it is. From your descriptions is sounds almost exactly like the book you're pimping.
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
dragonfart28 said:
Well is it the premise itself or the acting/filmography? Because deception at this level of business isn't really anything novel.
Click to expand...

It's everything. The premise is important because of what it represents to the characters. It is a social network. That is an important aspect to the story. And, of course, everything about the film from a technical and performance standpoint is fantastic.
 
dragonfart28

dragonfart28

Banned
BenjaminBirdie said:
It's everything. The premise is important because of what it represents to the characters. It is a social network. That is an important aspect to the story. And, of course, everything about the film from a technical and performance standpoint is fantastic.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll assume the cinematography is there. But what's so interesting about it being a social network? I mean, we've been hit over the head already a bunch of times about how the internet and digital life is changing society. The general idea is kind of mundane now. Is there something about social networking that we find out about in this movie? Something more enlightening than what we know already?
 
B

blame space

Banned
dragonfart28 said:
Okay, I'll assume the cinematography is there. But what's so interesting about it being a social network? I mean, we've been hit over the head already a bunch of times about how the internet and digital life is changing society. The general idea is kind of mundane now. Is there something about social networking that we find out about in this movie? Something more enlightening than what we know already?
Click to expand...

holy shit

don't see the movie. don't see any movie.
 
G

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
I wish people would just click the links I supplied :(

I've posted at least 3 links that explain how the movie is not really based on many facts, from people that have intimate knowledge of the truth.

I haven't seen the movie (yet), but, I mean, when Silicon Alley Insider says "this movie is fiction" - I listen to what they say.
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
dragonfart28 said:
Okay, I'll assume the cinematography is there. But what's so interesting about it being a social network? I mean, we've been hit over the head already a bunch of times about how the internet and digital life is changing society. The general idea is kind of mundane now. Is there something about social networking that we find out about in this movie? Something more enlightening than what we know already?
Click to expand...

It's not about us and social networking. It's about the characters in the movie.

It's like not wanting to see Tucker because cars are so over.
 
dragonfart28

dragonfart28

Banned
blame space said:
holy shit

don't see the movie. don't see any movie.
Click to expand...

:lol

Hey, all I'm saying is that if it's a solid 98%, it should be pretty mind blowing. If it's just about the characters, that's fine. Critics shouldn't make grand, sweeping generalizations like 'movie of the decade' or 'defining our age' without backing them up then as that's disingenuous.
 
S

Spire

Subconscious Brolonging
GDJustin said:
I wish people would just click the links I supplied :(

I've posted at least 3 links that explain how the movie is not really based on many facts, from people that have intimate knowledge of the truth.

I haven't seen the movie (yet), but, I mean, when Silicon Alley Insider says "this movie is fiction" - I listen to what they say.
Click to expand...

I did, it changes nothing. The film is based on court documents detailing three different stories and the film presents all three stories. What happens in between those stories can't really be known, you really think Zuckerberg or anyone else with a stake in that much money is going to provide the honest truth for a lot of that? Quibbling over details that no one (not Silicon Alley Insider, not Slate, not either of the authors) truly knows doesn't make the film some malicious lie, it makes it yet another interpretation based on the multiple stories that have been told. You can heave and haw that the film doesn't have the same read on the situation that your favorite tech rag or novel has on it, but don't hold it against the film.
 
G

GDJustin

stuck my tongue deep inside Atlus' cookies
Spire said:
I did, it changes nothing. The film is based on court documents detailing three different stories and the film presents all three stories. What happens in between those stories can't really be known, you really think Zuckerberg or anyone else with a stake in that much money is going to provide the honest truth for a lot of that? Quibbling over details that no one (not Silicon Alley Insider, not Slate, not either of the authors) truly knows doesn't make the film some malicious lie, it makes it yet another interpretation based on the multiple stories that have been told. You can heave and haw that the film doesn't have the same read on the situation that your favorite tech rag or novel has on it, but don't hold it against the film.
Click to expand...

http://www.businessinsider.com/is-t...ckerbergs-family-took-out-loans-for-servers-1

People DO know the true story. David Kilpatrick wrote an even-handed book about it.... that's my point.
 
E

Eggo

GameFan Alumnus
:( Organized a group of friends to see this tonight, but it's practically sold out for evening shows in my area (Los Angeles). There are tix available, but they are all front row. Guess it's going to have to wait.
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
dragonfart28 said:
:lol

Hey, all I'm saying is that if it's a solid 98%, it should be pretty mind blowing. If it's just about the characters, that's fine. Critics shouldn't make grand, sweeping generalizations like 'movie of the decade' or 'defining our age' without backing them up then as that's disingenuous.
Click to expand...

It's certainly a movie of the decade and it does define many aspects of our age.
 
H

hsin

Banned
dragonfart28 said:
:lol

Hey, all I'm saying is that if it's a solid 98%, it should be pretty mind blowing. If it's just about the characters, that's fine. Critics shouldn't make grand, sweeping generalizations like 'movie of the decade' or 'defining our age' without backing them up then as that's disingenuous.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Are you saying that critics ONLY make grand, sweeping generalizations, without full page write-ups about they aspects they liked/disliked?
 
S

Spire

Subconscious Brolonging
GDJustin said:
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-t...ckerbergs-family-took-out-loans-for-servers-1

People DO know the true story. David Kilpatrick wrote an even-handed book about it.... that's my point.
Click to expand...

Half the things on that list appear in one version of the story the film presents, but not the others. The other half aren't relevant to the story the film is trying to tell, which is not about Facebook. This isn't a documentary, it's a dramatization and if you're going to get grumpy because the date of Parker's cocaine arrest is off or Dustin Moscovitz isn't as good a programmer as he's portrayed in the film, I really don't think you understand what this movie is trying to do. And also, the integrity of that article is questionable but whatever. Even if it's all true it doesn't matter as none of that effects the themes of the film.
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
Spire said:
Half the things on that list appear in one version of the story the film presents, but not the others. The other half aren't relevant to the story the film is trying to tell, which is not about Facebook. This isn't a documentary, it's a dramatization and if you're going to get grumpy because the date of Parket's cocaine arrest is off or Dustin Moscovitz isn't as good a programmer as he's portrayed in the film, I really don't think you understand what this movie is trying to do. And also, the integrity of that article is questionable but whatever. Even if it's all true it doesn't matter as none of that effects the themes of the film.
Click to expand...

B, I, N, G-O.
 
V

verbum

Member
Cubsfan23 said:
will this movie reach titanic/avatar levels?
Click to expand...
I doubt it. There is mainly buzz in the under 30 year old group, older folks probably are not that interested. And females (please forgive the generalization) are probably not interested in a movie about a bunch of guys.
 
I

Inferno313

Banned
Cubsfan23 said:
will this movie reach titanic/avatar levels?
Click to expand...

In terms of gross? No offense man, but 'lol no'. :lol

It's a talky drama about a subject that, as this thread proves, some people don't even want to give a chance. It's not a "revolutionary" $300 Million action epic.
 
B

border

Member
GDJustin said:
In silicon Valley circles the movie is openly known as a work of fiction.
Click to expand...

How does anyone in Silicon Valley know what happened at Harvard 7 years ago?

It's interesting that The Accidental Billionaires is supposedly Saverin's side of the story because it's his accounting of events that make him much less sympathetic. In TAB he intentionally cuts off funding to Facebook and just lingers around New York while everyone else works in earnest. The SAI article doesn't mention this, and paints Zuckerberg as much more of an asshole.
 
B

BertramCooper

Banned
Just got back from it.

It was a fantastic film. Extremely well written, directed and acted.

That said, my major disappointment lies in the portrayal of Zuckerberg, which I found quite one dimensional. Yes, we understand that Zuckerberg is a douche, but Fincher and Sorkin didn't really seem interested in why he was like that.

No, this isn't a Zuckerberg biopic. Really, it's every bit as much about Saverin as Zuckerberg. But as a character, Saverin was interesting and compelling. Zuckerberg wasn't.

That makes it sound like I didn't like it, which isn't true at all. But it always bothers me when great films can't quite reach their full potential.
 
B

BenjaminBirdie

Banned
BertramCooper said:
Just got back from it.

It was a fantastic film. Extremely well written, directed and acted.

That said, my major disappointment lies in the portrayal of Zuckerberg, which I found quite one dimensional. Yes, we understand that Zuckerberg is a douche, but Fincher and Sorkin didn't really seem interested in why he was like that.

No, this isn't a Zuckerberg biopic. Really, it's every bit as much about Saverin as Zuckerberg. But as a character, Saverin was interesting and compelling. Zuckerberg wasn't.

That makes it sound like I didn't like it, which isn't true at all. But it always bothers me when great films can't quite reach their full potential.
Click to expand...

I kind of felt that way until he
punked out the Winklevi's lawyer. That illustrated him rather well, I thought.
But in retrospect, especially when comparing the first and final sequences, I actually thought he was quite deeply drawn in terms of motivation and emotion.
 
smokeymicpot

smokeymicpot

Beat EviLore at pool.
Thought it was pretty awesome movie. But I seen a reference to another Fincher movie in this not sure if anyone saw it but
The name of the alt account Zuckerberg was using was named Tyler Durden.
 
E

Expendable.

Member
smokeymicpot said:
Thought it was pretty awesome movie. But I seen a reference to another Fincher movie in this not sure if anyone saw it but
The name of the alt account Zuckerberg was using was named Tyler Durden.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was awesome.
 
MoFuzz

MoFuzz

Member
Expendable. said:
1,200+ Facebook Employees Rent Out Theater To See The Social Network - http://t.co/Z1lb95f
Click to expand...
Dayyyumm. I wonder what The Zuck is thinking/feeling on a day like today.

He seems pretty non-chalant in interviews. A couldn't care less attitude if you will. Still, as true or untrue as the film is, it must be upsetting on some level for him as many people will see it as a 100% accurate account of the events.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deadpool & Wolverine | Rotten Watch
Community
18
2K
JayK47 replied
K-Drama |OT| A Swoonworthy Community
30
2K
jshackles replied
Ken Kutaragi is the Greatest 'emperor' Of All Time and remains SIE's only true visionary
Opinion 2 3 4
155
13K
Moses85 replied
Bloomberg: Behind ‘Suicide Squad,’ the Year’s Biggest Video-Game Flop
2 3
131
7K
Shake Your Rump replied
A Meta prototype lets you build virtual worlds by describing them (The matrix is here)
Opinion News
6
1K
Keihart replied
Top Bottom