Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Robert Crawford, Oct 1, 2010.
And that's what was up for debate, and that's what they settled for with $65M.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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 $$.
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.
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.
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/
Latest news here: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/update-a-perspective-on-facebook-shutting-down-my-links/
Interesting. At least he acknowledges that: http://lewrockwell.com/rappoport/rappoport21.1.html
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!
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.
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!
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!
Event Horizon? I thought this was the Social Network thread!