The Social Network

If this kind of thing had happened on the front of tabloid papers or on random blogs or even if he were mocked on South Park or something, it would be something to shrug off. But this film is on its way to the Oscars and more than that it's the front runner for winning Best Picture (which is just bizarre to me. Inception and Toy Story 3 were both vastly superior imho). So here you have a film about your life that portrays you as a major asshole, backed by Hollywood heavyweights, watched by millions and millions of people around the globe, and has a good chance of becoming the Best Picture of the year and being cemented in cinematic history. That is not something even someone richer and more famous than Zuckerberg would be able to shrug off.

My cousin works at Facebook, I'm gonna ask her if anyone at work is talking about the movie or if it's totally not something they're discussing over there.

No matter how many people watch this movie, I guarentee there'd be more who use facebook.

Maybe it comes down to personal preference or something, but if someone gave me a choice of switching roles with Zuckerburg right now, meaning I got all the money in his account and all his shares and stocks and whatever else, but had to deal with all the 'personal attacks' this movie's made, there are not enough words to adequately describe how quickly I would say yes. I don't care if people thought I was ten times worse than how Zuckerberg appears in this film, that much money means that certain attacks just don't phase you, and if there's any that do then you can simply sue someone's ass...and win.

I doubt Bill Gates cares what the millions of Mac users think of him, I doubt every president ever cares how much hate and slander the opposing party and people who didn't get his vote direct at him, and I seriously doubt Zuckerberg cares that you guys think he was wronged. If the site starts to have the a decent chunk of the hundreds of millions of users stop logging on because of this film then maybe he'd start to care. But I doubt that's going to happen.

Amusingly, one thing in the film which is (largely) accurate is the Facesmash which is how the whole thing got started. And that's probably the meanest thing Zuckerberg does in the whole film (along with his excruciating break up scene at the start). The film though does show his fierce intelligence and how driven he is, it's not a complete character assassination. Either way, I don't think he's going to lose too much sleep over this, Facebook hasn't collapsed since the film's release last I checked. If the film did pick up Best Picture (and I won't complain if it does, good scripts in cinema are like hen's teeth these days), it's probably just more evidence for how far Facebook has reached since it began.

And as for saying it 'leaves a sour taste in the mouth', please get off your high horse.

The film really doesn't deserve best picture in my opinion. Scott Pilgrim, Inception, Toy Story 3 and The Town were all better movies than this. Aaron Sorkin deserves some kind of a award though, in a movie that relied on dialogue he obviously delivered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Amusingly, one thing in the film which is (largely) accurate is the Facesmash which is how the whole thing got started. And that's probably the meanest thing Zuckerberg does in the whole film (along with his excruciating break up scene at the start). The film though does show his fierce intelligence and how driven he is, it's not a complete character assassination. Either way, I don't think he's going to lose too much sleep over this, Facebook hasn't collapsed since the film's release last I checked. If the film did pick up Best Picture (and I won't complain if it does, good scripts in cinema are like hen's teeth these days), it's probably just more evidence for how far Facebook has reached since it began.

And as for saying it 'leaves a sour taste in the mouth', please get off your high horse.

---

lmao at your "get off your high horse". I think you're totally missing the point. As if anyone said that this film is going to have any impact on Facebook's financial status? That has nothing to do with anything. The point is that watching a movie about events that took place only a few years ago and the facts of those events are completely and utterly misrepresented is bizarre, kinda creepy and totally took away from the enjoyment of the film. Your argument is basically:

It's ok to ruin a person's reputation and make an unauthorized pseudo biographical film about a person as long as they are A) Rich, B) Their richness isn't threatened by the film.

Zuckerberg cares enough about his reputation to make a 100 million dollar donation to the Newark School district just days before the release of the film. Just sayin'. :greenie:

I don't know if you're desensitized to assholes or something, but Zuckerberg in the film was an asshole of epic proportions in my opinion. Seriously just wanted to beat the crap out of him the whole time.

It wasn't even the big stuff like lying to his best friend, luring him into a trap, and stripping him of his shares despite the fact that his best friend had quit his internship and was pounding the streets everyday for the benefit of Facebook. But even the little stuff like:

"It probably was a diversity thing". Omg. What a smurfing asshole.

His smug bitchy little speech he made during one of the depositions was gag worthy too.

And I kept wondering if they were going to bring up in the film some sort of condition that Zuckerberg has to make him that way. Autistic? Aspergers? I just couldn't swallow this idea that the film presented (completely separate from anything to do with the real Zuckerberg) that this kind of guy exists and has friends and even landed a girlfriend despite the fact that he obviously has some sort of defect that makes him act without any decency toward anyone else in the room with him. The guy portrayed wasn't someone who was vaguely unlikeable or susceptible to instances of meanness. He was just a complete grade A douchebag.

Well, if there was anywhere someone would become desensitized to assholes, it would probably be on the internet.

I don't see how his reputation is ruined in any way, Facebook continues to run, I don't see hate mobs forming against Mark Zuckerberg, and I am baffled how you find his portrayal in the film so completely negative - his sarcastic dialogue in the depositions is hilarious, it made me warm to his character a little actually. If anyone gets truly bashed in the film, it's Sean Parker.

Film about real events presents a biased slant on what happened? Stop the presses! The idea presented here that Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher have done a full-scale character assassination is as absurd as believing everything that a film tells you, which some people here think will happen to anyone who goes to see The Social Network.

The actor who played him said he studied Aspergers to figure out how to play Zuck, even though Zuck is not a diagnosed aspie. I think that's pretty mean. In interviews, he does seem socially awkward, but not nearly as bad as in the film.

It's not a matter of Facebook continuing to run. It's a matter of Mark Zuckerberg, a human being, being portrayed in a movie without his consent or any particular interest in portraying his personality or the events surrounding him accurately. If people made a movie about your personal life, you would just shrug it off? Seriously?

Even if the movie made me out to be a saint, I would be quite bothered, let alone an autistic asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charliepanayi

Amusingly, one thing in the film which is (largely) accurate is the Facesmash which is how the whole thing got started. And that's probably the meanest thing Zuckerberg does in the whole film (along with his excruciating break up scene at the start). The film though does show his fierce intelligence and how driven he is, it's not a complete character assassination. Either way, I don't think he's going to lose too much sleep over this, Facebook hasn't collapsed since the film's release last I checked. If the film did pick up Best Picture (and I won't complain if it does, good scripts in cinema are like hen's teeth these days), it's probably just more evidence for how far Facebook has reached since it began.

And as for saying it 'leaves a sour taste in the mouth', please get off your high horse.

---

What?

This thread has gotten smurfing ridiculous. Everyone shut up. :colbert:

EDIT: Uncalled for. Take your pearls of wisdom someplace else. Also I notice your avatar was over 80x80 so I went ahead and removed it. Happy Halloween! -Murder

@Miriel; I want to point out that I originally said that I can understand viewing a movie that is based on real peoples lives but isn't completely factual could be uncomfortable. If you're the kind of person who has that in the back of your mind then that's fine, it's just the way you personally view those kind of movies and everyone has their own gripes like that (I still get annoyed at the end of 500 Days of Summer because I think she deserves to be miserable). But I think you're kidding yourself if you think this is going to affect Zuckerberg in any real way, the people who he actually cares about, who's opinion really matter to him, are going to know the real story because he trusts them (or maybe he flat out lied about it, I don't really know and I think it's beside the point) and that is what really matters. Also, he's really, REALLY rich; and no matter how many times you guys say no, I really can't get over the fact that being that rich really does make you impervious to a lot of stuff, and as I said in my last post, these kind of attacks are something celebrities and large financial figures have to deal with.

@Shlup; I don't know if Zuckerberg suffers from Aspergers, Eisenberg was trying to be a dick, or if he was simply answering a question about how he prepared for the movie truthfully; but the acting performance was better off for having done that research in my opinion. Not only does it seem believable but it makes the character very entertaining and suited that fast paced dialogue perfectly. I'm not saying it was necessarily right to say that in an interview, but I think he was probably just proud that his extra research made for a good character and wanted to tell people.

I think the major disconnect in this thread seems to be people who are focusing more on the entertainment aspect of the film and the people who are more concerned with the background behind it. I understand both, and it really does just come down to how you watch these kind of movies, but I'll remind you that there's no "true story" label at any point in this film.

I cound the movie to be pretty good, myself.

Then again, I watched it from a "I know this isn't accurate" point of view.

And I saw it for free :D

I had no interest in seeing this film as I don't care about learning about the foundations of a website which will have little importance in approximately five years. I saw it because for some reason people think it has significance. It, like Myspace will eventually be just another website no one gives a :bou::bou::bou::bou: about, so why they felt a need to make a movie about it's founders is beyond me. I guess this time, is better since many people are using Facebook now and will be interested in seeing this movie than they would have been a few years ago when the site was just gaining notoriety among youth.

I don't really have anything particularly good to say about the film. The lead actor played the go-getting asshole genius very well, but it's not anything I haven't seen him do before. He will be forever typecast. If anything, it gave a good insight in to the minds of young entrepreneurs similarly to the film about a young Steve Jobs and Bill Gates vying to create the number one computer corporation in the world. All in all, I questioned where all the information for this film was coming from as it seemed very bias.

Also, it won't get Best Picture. It may get the nomination, but it won't win. There are still various other movies coming out i.e. Black Swan and that one by Sophia Coppola called Somewhere that may be heavy contenders. Well, yeah Black Swan will definitely be. In fact Natalie Portman will probably be getting an Oscar this year, but yeah. Side note...

I think The Social Network has a better chance of winning Best Picture than Somewhere (which I really want to see but which has had a mixed response so far) and Black Swan (which I also want to see and will probably get Portman some awards attention but is far too bat***t insane to be winning Best Picture itself). The King's Speech is a more likely option to steal its thunder at the Oscars.

I can see The Social Network winning Best Screenplay if anything. I don't get why people think Justin Timberlake's performed was the best in the movie. Granted, he did well, but the guy who played Eduardo was far more convincing.