The Social Network

@Surenity:

Unintentional? It was a period piece. It took place in the early 2000s and made it distinct from the present.

edited 6th Mar '11 9:42:01 AM by Sporkaganza

The whole point of the movie is to capture this generations's...something.

This generation's half-intentional sociopathy?

zietgeist is what i've heard it called by people with way too much free time and student loans.

I think you were thinking of jerkassery though.

Yes, that was the word/trope.

It's about how self-centered this generation has gotten as a whole, and how this generation uses the internet to gain popularity, without restriction, and trying not to avoid restriction in any way, even if it means consquences for other people.

It's a nice little social commentary. Fincher films are always bound to have some social commentary message (except The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but that's a more mainstream fantasy movie).

Yep my generation sucks just go to any High School/College/Middle School.

Finally saw this. Damn, Zuckerberg is an asshole. Or at least, movie!Zuckerberg is an asshole.

Zuckerberg was a brilliant, snarky asshole but also clearly pathetic, especially in the final scene. But poor Eduardo. Was he ever ass-raped just for being a nice guy. I wonder what the real Zuckerberg and Saverin think of it, and of the ever-expanding slash fanbase.

^Well, apparently Zuckerberg appreciated the accuracy in the wardrobe.

I actually didn't think Sorkin's Zuckerberg was that. Sure he was ruthless and ambitious, but I admired that aspect of his character- I doubt he would have been successful without it. Sure he was a rampant user of women, but so are a lot of immature young teens and 20-somethings.

Just saw it.

This made me want to punch everyone and everything, which was probably the point.

Cool movie. I love how pathetic the last scene was. Like Sisyphus and his boulder.

I'm surprised this thread doesn't have more posts. Anyway, this is my favorite movie, so I feel obligated to do some necromancy.

Aaron Sorkin did a terrific job that, I believe, would convert some of the naysayers in this thread who lambasted it before it was released. I'll admit that I was skeptical about the quality of the movie's premise, but if this film taught me anything, it's that top-notch writing makes anything interesting.

I would like to ask - how many other people here sympathized with movie Zuckerberg? I'm not necessarily asking for full on "Yeah, he's totally like me," but anything like "I see where he's coming from/Why he's like that." I'm asking because I could definitely identify with some of his plights (like that instance where he tried to apologize to Albright, not that she wasn't being a bitch).

On that note, Sorkin apparently said Albright was a character you were supposed to have sympathy for. I don't, because she reminded me of that kind of person who you see wronged a few times, but who you never see wrong anyone else. Sort of like a representation of the portion of the audience who wouldn't like having someone like movie Zuckerberg condescend to them, and who would like to have their *noble ignorance* held up as a virtue (please tell me you know what I'm getting at).

Finally saw this on the plane...and it's interesting to say the least. Definitely a bit frustrating to see some people(not necessarily on tv tropes) automatically painting Zuckerberg as some kind of monster just from seeing this film.

Yeah, this movie was definitely a rather gray film, with Eduardo arguably being the nicest character, though obviously not without his flaws. Despite the movie's reputation, I don't think Zuckerberg was that bad. Definitely manipulative and has some standards, but probably too driven. Amazing how Eduardo managed to keep patience with him that long though.

Regarding the Winklevii case, what were the views on who was right?

edited 24th Jan '13 1:06:20 AM by blueflame724

The twins did end up getting paid to go away. Which they did.

To a degree, I have to agree with Zuckerburg with the whole "If they could have invented Facebook, then they WOULD have invented Facebook." Whether or not he came up with the idea for Facebook himself or the Winkelvii did, the Winklevii clearly did NOT have the ability to materialize it on their own. He took no money from them. If he had played it the way they wanted, they likely would have insisted that he was just a technician. In the end, who gets credit for the teleporter, Gene Roddenberry for coming up with the idea of it, or whoever eventually figures out how to do it, and actually builds the thing?

The thing with Eduardo, though, that ain't cool.

Yeah, I think the Eduardo case was, at best, gray, at worst a portrayal of Zuckerberg's low. I kind of wanted to root for Mark, but it would sort of mean bending back a bit too much. It sort of makes it clear how manipulative it was, even though much of the jerkassery is placed with Sean Parker.

The case with the Winklevosses makes me of some inversion of God Does Not Own This World; Mark actually helped make facebook so he gets credit for it. There was definitely some clear deception, but Mark does have a point in the end.

edited 27th Jan '13 12:23:42 PM by blueflame724

Yeah, with the Winklevoss twins, what did they contribute outside of "Hey, wouldn't this be a cool idea?" They didn't fund it, Zuckerberg didn't ask them to fund it, and they didn't contribute time, talent, energy or resources of anykind. They just saw his "facemash" prank and thought it had other applications.

The Social Network stole the Oscar for Best Original Score from How To Train Your Dragon.