tokkaandrahzar wrote:I believe The Social Network is the worse movie because as a "biopic"

but its not a biopic

so your argument just went down the drain

tokkaandrahzar wrote:I believe The Social Network is the worse movie because as a "biopic", it has the responsibility of truth. But since the movie is based on a book generally agreed to be mostly fiction, and whose screenplay was written by someone who did not want to feel burdened by the facts, it fails in telling the truth.

Part of the appeal of The Social Network is the fact that facebook is so common in our lives. This inherently raises the interest of the subject matter. If Fincher changed the names and setting and made the movie about some other generic social network, no one would have cared about his movie. But because the movie purports to be about the "real" Mark Zuckerberg when it really isn't, ultimately is dishonest and hurts the movie in my eyes.

Well, the events depicted in the movie really happened. They took them from the depositions in the real-life lawsuits. Mark Zuckerberg really did create Facemash overnight while drunk and did get in trouble for it. He really did jip Saverin's stock down to 0.03%. And so on and so forth.

What TSN did was to put a face behind the facts and present what could have been the characters that led to the lawsuits. We know that Mark had a gf (the same gf he has now, actually), during the entire development of Facebook, but Sorkin and Fincher decided to make girl-trouble the impetus for the whole thing. Now why do you think they did that?

That's what makes it artistically interesting and not just a History Channel TV special.

But by changing Mark's motivation for starting Facebook, aren't they providing us a distorted view of reality? They could be sued for intentionally ruining his reputation, right?
Most of us geeks know the truth and so it doesn't really matter. But what of the millions of laymen and/or casual Facebook users who have no idea about Zuckerberg? They'll be influenced by the movie and will probably think of him as "that nerd who couldn't get a girl".
I wonder why he allowed the movie (and even the book) to be released in the first place.

kanjisheik wrote:But by changing Mark's motivation for starting Facebook, aren't they providing us a distorted view of reality? They could be sued for intentionally ruining his reputation, right?

Most of us geeks know the truth and so it doesn't really matter. But what of the millions of laymen and/or casual Facebook users who have no idea about Zuckerberg? They'll be influenced by the movie and will probably think of him as "that nerd who couldn't get a girl".

I wonder why he allowed the movie (and even the book) to be released in the first place.

It's probably partly why he gave $100 million to the Newark school system before the movie came out. But seriously, it's not worth the lawsuit, IMO. So what if the public thinks he can't get a girl? The guy's still making his money, people will continue to use Facebook. What he does in his personal life won't change that. The stuff that really made him look bad business-wise was all real.

Plus if you've ever heard of the Streisand effect, the public might wonder why he doth protest so much if he made a big deal out of it.

Yeah, i didn't think of that. He really is in a Catch 22 situation. Anyway, considering he is the youngest billionaire ever, he probably doesn't give a damn. Great assessment, Anita!

kanjisheik wrote:But by changing Mark's motivation for starting Facebook, aren't they providing us a distorted view of reality?

since when do facts bear any relevance to how good a movie is? this is not a documentary...its a feature film

The biggest difference as far as the characters were concerned is that Zuckerberg is nowhere near as quick-witted and sharp on his feet in real life as Sorkin/Fincher/Eisenberg chose to portray him in the film. Check out some interviews with the guy on YouTube and you'll see he's nowhere near as confident in himself as the movie portrayed. He's not a fast-talker either by any means. He may be very smart, but he struggles with answering interview questions just like millions of other people. The movie also made him more of a talker than he is in real life, at least according to people who know him. That probably explains his fear of interviews/public speaking. The movie basically made him out to be like Steve Jobs. Jobs is very smart but also well-known for being quick on his feet. He's also great with PR. This is the kind of thing you either have or you don't have. Zuckerberg is more of a traditional nerd. Quiet and smart but awkward in social situations.

Two different types of films. Both really good.

redfirebird2008 wrote:The biggest difference as far as the characters were concerned is that Zuckerberg is nowhere near as quick-witted and sharp on his feet in real life as Sorkin/Fincher/Eisenberg chose to portray him in the film. Check out some interviews with the guy on YouTube and you'll see he's nowhere near as confident in himself as the movie portrayed. He's not a fast-talker either by any means. He may be very smart, but he struggles with answering interview questions just like millions of other people. The movie also made him more of a talker than he is in real life, at least according to people who know him. That probably explains his fear of interviews/public speaking. The movie basically made him out to be like Steve Jobs. Jobs is very smart but also well-known for being quick on his feet. He's also great with PR. This is the kind of thing you either have or you don't have. Zuckerberg is more of a traditional nerd. Quiet and smart but awkward in social situations.

Is ANYONE as quick-witted as Sorkin writes them to be?

And Steve Jobs is at least affable along with being borderline arrogant. Mark Zuckerberg in TSN was snippy in his best moments.

redfirebird2008 wrote:The biggest difference as far as the characters were concerned is that Zuckerberg is nowhere near as quick-witted and sharp on his feet in real life as Sorkin/Fincher/Eisenberg chose to portray him in the film. Check out some interviews with the guy on YouTube and you'll see he's nowhere near as confident in himself as the movie portrayed. He's not a fast-talker either by any means. He may be very smart, but he struggles with answering interview questions just like millions of other people. The movie also made him more of a talker than he is in real life, at least according to people who know him. That probably explains his fear of interviews/public speaking. The movie basically made him out to be like Steve Jobs. Jobs is very smart but also well-known for being quick on his feet. He's also great with PR. This is the kind of thing you either have or you don't have. Zuckerberg is more of a traditional nerd. Quiet and smart but awkward in social situations.

a film character modeled after a real life counter part is NEVER like the real life person....its filtered by the writer's imagination, by the actor's imagination, shaped by the director, and edited by the editors