The Social Network (2010) (1 Viewer)

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Don Solosan
"You're over-thinking this."

I don't think so. They had a verbal contract. It's pretty simple, really -- if everybody plays fair.

And that's what was up for debate, and that's what they settled for with $65M.

 

[Don Solosan]

"And that's what was up for debate, and that's what they settled for with $65M."

I think what was up for debate was how a jury would see the case. Their lawyer probably advised them that they were better off with a small vindication and cash award.

 

[Jacinto]

/forum/thread/304596/official-the-social-network-review-thread#post_3770435
Entertaining, but it seemed as shallow as the characters that it was examining.

See, this is where I find the absolute brilliance of The Social Network. Whether intended by the filmmakers or not, the film is an amazingly accurate presentation of social networking as a whole: fascinating, engaging, entertaining, but in the end, empty and shallow. As much as I enjoyed the script, the direction, the score, the cinematography, the editing, and the performances, it's that aspect of the complete film that elevates this movie even more to me -- that the film in its entirety is a reflection of the subject matter represented.

 

[Carlo_M]

And you'd have to believe that was Fincher's intention. He has shown in his past movies the ability to delve very deeply into meaningful subjects, so it's not as if we have a director who has a historically shallow track record trying to be "artsy" and failing. I think Jacinto hits it right on the head, and yes I believe it was an intentional decision by the filmmaker and not coincidental.

. Whether intended by the filmmakers or not, the film is an amazingly accurate presentation of social networking as a whole: fascinating, engaging, entertaining, but in the end, empty and shallow. As much as I enjoyed the script, the direction, the score, the cinematography, the editing, and the performances, it's that aspect of the complete film that elevates this movie even more to me -- that the film in its entirety is a reflection of the subject matter represented.

 

[Don Solosan]

"Fincher comparing this to "Citizen Kane" is just ego."

Reread the quote. Saying that your film is the "Citizen Kane of John Hughes movies" is not the same thing as comparing your film to Citizen Kane, and it shows that Fincher has a fair amount of humor about his work.

 

[JonZ]

I was listening to talk radio on my drive back from South Carolina this morning and there was a interview with a financial expert talking about facebook, myspace,etc and she went on about how FB is just beginning when it comes to big $$.

 

[Cees Alons]

Originally Posted by Jacinto
See, this is where I find the absolute brilliance of The Social Network. Whether intended by the filmmakers or not, the film is an amazingly accurate presentation of social networking as a whole: fascinating, engaging, entertaining, but in the end, empty and shallow. As much as I enjoyed the script, the direction, the score, the cinematography, the editing, and the performances, it's that aspect of the complete film that elevates this movie even more to me -- that the film in its entirety is a reflection of the subject matter represented.

A (small) survey done last year by a local newspaper showed that all those people boasting the enormous number of "friends" they now have, have indeed ... less friends in reality. In the group that was investigated, the relation between the number of "friends" someone had on the so-called "social" network (it wasn't Facebook) was almost precisely inverse proportional to the number of real friends they entered in the questionnaire.

I think the choice of words like "social" for the network and "friends" for the virtual group is a brilliant PR decision of great inventiveness and imagination. And very insincere.

There's no doubt that Fincher pinned this aspect flawlessly. Yet it doesn't make the movie very interesting to me at all, somehow. I just think it's because the main characters aren't very interesting at all.

Not a film I will be looking out for to watch it a second time, I'm afraid.


Cees

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Originally Posted by TravisR

Same here. It's a movie, not a documentary. How many movies have there been that really concern themselves with getting the true story on the screen over condensing events or making things more interesting or removing elements so it's easier for the audience to understand?

I think it's worth pointing out for a movie that depicts people who are still in their 20s and events that happened less than a decade ago. It's easy for people to get the wrong idea.

It's not so important for something like Amadeus, where all the real people have been dead for centuries.

 

[JParker]

Could Jon Rappoport be on to something? Did the film makers miss a major opportunity? Any Accel Partners reading this thread? https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2012/08/20/facebook-the-cia-darpa-and-the-tanking-ipo/

The big infusion of cash that sent Mark Zuckerberg and his fledgling college enterprise on their way came from Accel Partners, in 2004. Jim Breyer, head of Accel, attached a $13 million rocket to Facebook, and nothing has ever been the same. Earlier that same year, a man named Gilman Louie joined the board of the National Venture Capital Association of America (NVCA). The chairman of NVCA? Jim Breyer. Gilman Louie happened to be the first CEO of the important CIA start-up, In-Q-Tel. In-Q-Tel was founded in 1999, with the express purpose of funding companies that could develop technology the CIA would use to “gather data.” From the time Mark Zuckerberg was a child and attended the summer camp for “exceptional children,” CTY (Center for Talented Youth), run by Johns Hopkins University, he, like other CTY students, Sergey Brin (co-founder of Google), and Lady Gaga, have been easy to track. CTY and similar camps filter applications and pick the best and brightest for their accelerated learning programs. Tracing the later progress of these children in school and life would be a standard operation for agencies like the CIA. When Zuckerberg founded an interesting little social network at Harvard, and then sought to turn it into a business, the data-mining possibilities were obvious to CIA personnel. Through their cutouts, as described above, they stepped in and lent a helping hand. Now it’s time for Zuckerberg to pass the baton to his handlers, so they can maximize the economics of Facebook and utilize it to spy even more extensively. The media will play along, pretending the eventual upswing-recovery of Facebook stock happens for fundamental reasons connected to the company’s “better level of performance.” The media take this approach to every stock and every company, to avoid letting the public know how massive manipulation actually runs these trading markets. Sources: http://www.crunchbase.com/person/jim-breyer http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?p=1601

Latest news here: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/update-a-perspective-on-facebook-shutting-down-my-links/

How did the limited Facebook censorship occur? It could have been triggered by people making untrue “spam” or “abusive content” reports. These would have been people who couldn’t stand the heat of analysis that was deeper than what they were looking for. They could have been paid trolls or agents. They could have been people with partisan political views and no understanding of, or loyalty to, the 1st Amendment. Or the “Facebook team” might have taken it upon themselves to limit access to my wordpress links, because Facebook is partnered with political players and intelligence agencies, and they decided I was too critical of current government/corporate agendas.

Interesting. At least he acknowledges that: http://lewrockwell.com/rappoport/rappoport21.1.html

Some people have pointed out that Facebook is a private company, and therefore it has the right to define acceptable speech any way it wants to. This may be true, but blocking and censoring political viewpoints is a very bad policy. Claiming, for example, that Facebook is only for making and communicating with friends is a cop-out. If friends can’t share information about political realities, it’s a hollow situation. Many reporters, including myself, came to the Internet because we were sick and tired of trying to convince editors at newspapers and magazines that our work should see the light of day. Editors routinely shot down (and still do) article ideas that wandered too far off the mainstream reservation. That was the censorship we were leaving in the dust. Now, here it is again. Every day, I read articles I don’t like. The idea of somehow censoring them would be absurd.

Who knows but it is interesting for whatever reason he's been "shut out". But if there is a CIA connection to Facebook, that would have been a provocative film if it had been made or part of this work, but I suppose Ms. Bigelow would have to direct any film on the topic. But seriously, does the Intel community really think what Honey Boo blogs on Facebook is a matter of National Security? Crazy stuff!

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm pretty sure Fincher made the movie he wanted to make. If he wanted to direct The Bourne Identity: Facebook Ultimatum, he could have done so.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I read that post without noticing the header, and got about 1/3 of the way through before thinking "that sounds like something James Parker would dig!"

 

[JParker]

I read that post without noticing the header, and got about 1/3 of the way through before thinking "that sounds like something James Parker would dig!"

Mr. Silverman, you continue to plummet to intellectual depths that astound, and I can't be the only one who notices. Thank you, sir!

 

[Aaron Silverman]

How loooooow can I gooooo?

 

[JParker]

How loooooow can I gooooo?

Gee, I don't know...once you pass the event horizon, not a peep, right? Guess you're not there yet! Or else you're wrong, and that can't be right!

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Event Horizon? I thought this was the Social Network thread!