The Social Network (2010)

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Social Network". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.
All HTF member film reviews of "The Social Network" should be posted to the [COLOR= rgb(68,112,140)]Official Review Thread[/COLOR].
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Crawdaddy

I'll be at the first showing in the morning as due to the showtimes I chose to watch Let Me In today and The Social Network tomorrow. Something tells me this is going to be one of the best weekend of new films I've seen in good while.






Crawdaddy

The film is incredibly well acted and interesting. Unfortunately, it is mostly fictional

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

But that having been said, as long as you can take it with a grain of salt and understand that it is a heavily fictionalized accounting of events using names/elements that were real, it's fascinating. And the performances really are top notch.

I never expected the film to be accurate to the truth. Since the truth has been litigated in so many directions by such a huge amount of money, I doubt the actual Zuckerberg could piece it together. But I was interested in the story the filmmakers were telling. I don't think he Slate article even gets the movie. The filmic Zuckerberg isn't driven by a clean motivation. It is very push/pull. He isn't simply looking for acceptance from the elite...it is more complex than that.

The one thing that resonates from the film is the speed at which creation and information processing happens these days is exponentially faster than even a decade ago.

Don't let the fictionalized aspect of the film to be an impediment to seeing it or getting something from it.

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer
I never expected the film to be accurate to the truth.

Click to expand...

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 I raved about how well I like the film. I'm just saying, it's good to keep in mind that this is not a "real" portrayal, which people should remember also, rather then take opinions from it.

^^ I think everyone knows they're watching a movie. But at this point I'm far more inclined to believe the movie over some trash article from a rag like Slate.com. (Which frankly didn't even refute all that much, I guess Facebook didn't pay them enough)

Did the same guy play both Winkevoss brothers? I thought so, but IMDB has 2 different actors listed for the 2 brothers, but they were identical twins in the movie (just the hair style was also different between the two of them in each and every shot).

Armie Hammer played both twins. Another actor was the body for one of them, but Hammer was all of the faces.

Pretty darn good twin stuff, then.

The illusion of Armie Hammer playing both brothers is by far the most convincing and seamless digital effect I've seen in any film in a long time. I had never heard of him until this film so I naturally assumed they cast real twins, never for one second did I suspect they were the same guy.

The movie was great but I must say that seeing interviews with the real Mark Zuckerberg he doesn't seem as stiff and snobbishly intellectual as Eisenberg portrayed him, he actually came off quite personable from what I've seen of him.

So let me ask this regarding Facebook's creation, the Winklevoss' didn't actually own that idea, right? I know they ran a networking site on the Harvard campus that was only open to other Harvard students but the idea of a wider and grander networking site was totally open for the taking, right? That's what I took from the film anyway.

It seems to me that the Winklevoss' main complaint was that Zuckerberg was being unethical in taking something that they came up with first but didn't actually hold any sort of ownership over and also they seemed extremely jealous most of the film when Facebook really took off. Can't say I blame them, if someone took something that was sitting right under my nose and made billions off of it that would bother me too lol.

One of the criticisms of the film is that the real Zuckerberg is quite different than how he was portrayed in the film. Apparently, he's much more outgoing and personable and not some motivated social outcast like he was in the film.

As far as the creation of Facebook and the Winklevoss complaint, IMO, the dispute was about who's idea it was about the social network and not about the actual development of the network by Zuckerberg and his friends.

I don't think there was any question that the Winklevoss' created the basic idea that would eventually become Facebook, but besides their unethical argument they didn't have a legal leg to stand on once Zuckerberg took their unrealized idea and made it into something.

I'm 6'5", 220 pounds, and there's two of me...

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun
Pretty darn good twin stuff, then.

Click to expand...

That was a great line. Made me laugh.

I enjoyed the movie alot.

Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

So let me ask this regarding Facebook's creation, the Winklevoss' didn't actually own that idea, right? I know they ran a networking site on the Harvard campus that was only open to other Harvard students but the idea of a wider and grander networking site was totally open for the taking, right? That's what I took from the film anyway.

It seems to me that the Winklevoss' main complaint was that Zuckerberg was being unethical in taking something that they came up with first but didn't actually hold any sort of ownership over and also they seemed extremely jealous most of the film when Facebook really took off. Can't say I blame them, if someone took something that was sitting right under my nose and made billions off of it that would bother me too lol.

Click to expand...

Only going off what we have in the press (real) and the settlements,
The Winklevoss' claim that they had approached Zuckerberg with an idea for a campus wide "book" and they would allow others to keep and maintain a harvard.edu email address, which would be attractive to students and alumni to have on their key chain. They believed that by offering alumni a chance to gain a harvard.edu email address, they'd have a potential breakout, because branding of email was very important to them (they mention this a few times in the film, and no one contested in any documents that was a big part of the selling point).
At no point did they provide Zuckerberg any money. Zero. They told him they wanted to develop it, and they'd give him a percentage if their idea became anything. That is also not in dispute.

He took their focused idea (Harvard!) and made it generic, applying wherever. Because, in the end, he apparently didn't value the hip/coolness of a harvard.edu address, etc. as a big selling point, only the connections.

His idea quickly spread to other u's. Now, the bitch of this is, that he basically ignored the Winklevoss brothers.. he kept saying to them stuff like "well, we can try and meet" and "I'm working on it" when in fact (and few contest that) he basically gave up on their idea as garbage early on.
Their contention is that there idea gave him his. His contention was that their idea showed him how to not do something, and he did something else entirely.

The settled for $65M. Which while HUGE became "go away" money, because I don't think they really had a firm legal leg to stand on since they didn't provide him any funds at any point. But still, a hell of a settlement.
His first partner ended up getting a very large, undisclosed settlement, and his name was restored to the founders banners on facebook information. (Most estimate this at somewhere around $600M) the merit of his case was that, in fact, he did pay for all of the upstart costs, etc. and was guaranteed an equity stake. The bad move on his part was freezing the accounts (which in real life was longer then a day it seems) which would have been the counter claim. But his settlement is hefty.

Originally Posted by mattCR
His first partner ended up getting a very large, undisclosed settlement, and his name was restored to the founders banners on facebook information. (Most estimate this at somewhere around $600M) the merit of his case was that, in fact, he did pay for all of the upstart costs, etc. and was guaranteed an equity stake. The bad move on his part was freezing the accounts (which in real life was longer then a day it seems) which would have been the counter claim. But his settlement is hefty.

Click to expand...

IMO, he deserved his equity stake for those reasons. I think he owns about 5-6% of Facebook which makes him a billionaire today. Furthermore, I think he made two mistakes with Zuckerberg and Facebook. You touched on the first one, but the second one was not going to California with them and protecting his investment while his more technical-enhanced partners were out there fully developing Facebook.

"I don't think there was any question that the Winklevoss' created the basic idea that would eventually become Facebook, but besides their unethical argument they didn't have a legal leg to stand on once Zuckerberg took their unrealized idea and made it into something."

"The settled for $65M. Which while HUGE became "go away" money, because I don't think they really had a firm legal leg to stand on since they didn't provide him any funds at any point. But still, a hell of a settlement."

???

I think their mistake was not having Zuckerberg sign a contract (that whole "Harvard men are trustworthy" thing). Even if they didn't pay him up front, it was a "work for hire." Hollywood does this all the time. You pitch them an idea, they like it, they hire you to write the script and they own everything. If it's a nonunion project, payment may be deferred -- doesn't matter. If they decide to not make the film, you can't go sell the script elsewhere. If they had had a contract, they might have walked away with the company.

Originally Posted by Don Solosan
I think their mistake was not having Zuckerberg sign a contract (that whole "Harvard men are trustworthy" thing). Even if they didn't pay him up front, it was a "work for hire." Hollywood does this all the time. You pitch them an idea, they like it, they hire you to write the script and they own everything. If it's a nonunion project, payment may be deferred -- doesn't matter. If they decide to not make the film, you can't go sell the script elsewhere. If they had had a contract, they might have walked away with the company.

Click to expand...

You're over-thinking this. It's more a matter of someone saying "I want a SciFi movie with Green aliens that plays only in Korea". You ditch that project and you go to work and make Independence Day. Yes there are still aliens, but it's a huge difference.

I watched a film I hadn't seen in a while this morning thinking about this:

"You're over-thinking this."

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