-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

*** Official THE SOCIAL NETWORK Discussion Thread


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 of 35 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,624 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 01 2010 - 01:18 PM

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 
Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy



Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#2 of 35 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,624 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 01 2010 - 01:37 PM

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


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#3 of 35 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted October 01 2010 - 03:57 PM

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


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.


trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#4 of 35 OFFLINE   Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 7,979 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted October 02 2010 - 12:48 AM

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.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#5 of 35 OFFLINE   TravisR

TravisR

    Studio Mogul

  • 21,995 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 15 2004
  • LocationThe basement of the FBI building

Posted October 02 2010 - 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Chuck Mayer 

I never expected the film to be accurate to the truth.



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?



#6 of 35 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted October 02 2010 - 05:49 AM

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.


trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#7 of 35 OFFLINE   Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted October 02 2010 - 06:04 AM

^^ 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)


"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#8 of 35 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,742 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted October 02 2010 - 08:11 AM

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).


"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#9 of 35 OFFLINE   Chuck Mayer

Chuck Mayer

    Lead Actor

  • 7,979 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 06 2001
  • Real Name:Chuck Mayer
  • LocationNorthern Virginia

Posted October 02 2010 - 09:40 AM

Armie Hammer played both twins. Another actor was the body for one of them, but Hammer was all of the faces.
Hey buddy...did you just see a real bright light?

#10 of 35 OFFLINE   Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,742 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted October 02 2010 - 09:58 AM

Pretty darn good twin stuff, then.


"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#11 of 35 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted October 05 2010 - 11:03 PM

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.


"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#12 of 35 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,624 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 06 2010 - 12:29 AM

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.


Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#13 of 35 OFFLINE   Inspector Hammer!

Inspector Hammer!

    Executive Producer

  • 11,067 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 15 1999
  • Real Name:John Williamson
  • LocationWilmington, Delaware

Posted October 06 2010 - 01:22 AM

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.


"That's Jack Bauer!!!!!! He's coming for me!!!!!" - Charles Logan

#14 of 35 OFFLINE   Carlo Medina

Carlo Medina

    Lead Actor

  • 9,678 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 31 1997

Posted October 11 2010 - 02:47 AM

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

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun 

Pretty darn good twin stuff, then.




XBox Live: TheL1brarian (let's play Destiny on XB1)


#15 of 35 OFFLINE   JonZ

JonZ

    Lead Actor

  • 7,793 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 28 1998

Posted October 13 2010 - 10:18 AM

That was a great line. Made me laugh.


I enjoyed the movie alot.



#16 of 35 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted October 13 2010 - 11:18 AM



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.



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.



trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#17 of 35 ONLINE   Robert Crawford

Robert Crawford

    Moderator

  • 24,624 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 09 1998
  • Real Name:Robert
  • LocationMichigan

Posted October 13 2010 - 11:27 AM



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.



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.

Crawdaddy

 

Blu-ray Preorder Schedule

 


#18 of 35 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor

  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted October 13 2010 - 12:53 PM

"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.


#19 of 35 OFFLINE   mattCR

mattCR

    Lead Actor

  • 9,998 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted October 30 2010 - 10:45 AM



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.




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:





trakt.tv

Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3


#20 of 35 OFFLINE   Don Solosan

Don Solosan

    Supporting Actor

  • 748 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 14 2003

Posted October 30 2010 - 11:41 AM

"You're over-thinking this."


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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users