Well, for one thing, you seem under the mistaken impression that Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook had anything to do with the production of this film. They didn't. It's not some unholy union of Hollywood and social media. It's a dramatization of a story in the public record, which last I heard Zuckerberg wasn't hugely thrilled about but it's not like he could stop it.

Do you object to the existence of CITIZEN KANE? THE AVIATOR? PIRATES OF SILICON VALLEY? MAN ON THE MOON? RAY? ALI?

Not to say TSN is on the same quality level as any of those films (haven't seen it), but a biopic's a biopic. If you're cool with biopics, I don't see what makes this one any different other than it's about Facebook and it's hip to hate on Facebook. Not judging, I do it too.

For the record, I don't see anything inherently wrong with the pop culture machine. SERENITY was the result of the pop culture machine. BATMAN BEGINS and DARK KNIGHT were results of the pop culture machine. Hell, EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was the result of the pop culture machine of its time.

But of course, the pop culture machine also brought us pretty much every shitty and unnecessary sequel ever made, and a number of adaptations we probably could also have done without (I'm looking at you, every movie based on a video game). The pop culture machine is amoral, it's all a question of whether or not it falls into the wrong hands.

Just because something had its roots in a business decision doesn't mean it can't also be artistically valid and powerful. The Sistine Chapel was a work-for-hire, let's not forget. As were most of the works of Shakespeare. The question is, did they just slap something together, assuming the pop culture association would do the work for them, or did they treat it as seriously as any other project and make a real movie?

Again, I can't answer that question, because I haven't seen SOCIAL NETWORK. But dismissing it based on its premise or the fact that it's a commercially lucrative premise seems a little wrongheaded, since pretty much no film gets greenlit unless the studio thinks it has the potential to be commercially lucrative.

That being said, I think it's perfectly fine not to be interested in it. I'm not particularly interested, since I don't much care for Facebook or biopics and I feel like I've seen the fall from grace story plenty of times, but it's getting good reviews and a few people I know have already seen and recommended it, so I expect I'll find the time to see it before the weekend is over.

Hmm...alright first off, I think I need apologize...I was in a very very very bad/spiteful mood last night, reasons for which include alot of things but among them a 30 minute argument with a facebook prophet bringing the light of civilization the heathens of the world. (I'm talking about their view on the movie, I do have a facebook, I don't need to be sold on it).

Secondly...now that I'm in a cooler head.

@Dorkman:

I did/do know that Mark Zuckerberg/facebook had nothing to do with the movie, I think that's one of the driving factors that make me not want to see this movie. It just seems like a particularly good example of the way hollywood seems intent on screwing with everything.
This idea of making a film about something that only came into existence not even 10 years ago and then to try and sell it as the "true" story of the conception of it (I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that every single marketing element I saw, was trying to convince me that this is a movie about the true way facebook got started) without even having the ACTUAL people involved in the making of it, but more than that seeing the actual people speak out against the portrayal of the events.

Everything about this movie seems wrong and disgusting.

So Dorkman that's where this movie differs from those you listed. The fact that it's advertising that it's a true depiction of events that happened a very very short time ago comparatively, when everything else I know about the movie screams that that can't be true.

PS. My reference to the pop culture machine was misused. What I meant was this fad of movies being made solely about pop culture icons in an attempt to make as much money of it while they can without even a thought to whether or not it's an idea worth making a movie about.

And yes I fully understand that that has always been a thing in hollywood and always will be, so I guess I'm just using TSN as my milk carton to stand on and preach my message of the evils of hollywood to the crowds once again. I'll freely admit that.

I had read the script a few months back and saw it, as Teague mentioned.   I really enjoyed it.  At it's core, it's about a kid that wants to outthink the social contract in order to join it, and while becoming wildly successful in life, is ultimately stuck in the same place he started. 
There are parts of the film that deal with what happens when you create something with somebody, and the idea grows too fast for one of them to keep up.  It's not a matter of who's right or wrong: any creative pursuit takes a life of its own at some point, and your job is to stay one step ahead of it.  Some folks can't and the relationship with Mark and Eduardo is indicative of this.

I love Sorkin's writing here, Fincher takes a measured hand, and performances are really solid all the way around.

Oh...and even in the little you see of her, Roony Mara is a PERFECT choice for Fincher's Lisbeth Salander.

off topic: I still think you guys should just see the original Swedish films of the millenium-trilogy. Instead of waiting for Fincher's version of it.
I'm not saying it'll suck, I'm just saying the originals are DAMN good, and I see no point in remaking it.

Finally saw this and loved it. I currently can't get past the first 10min of Inception, but i liked this so much i wanted to watch it twice. Fincher's best movie after Fight Club. Great writing, the jumping back and forth in time worked fine. Top rate acting but nobody really stood out for me.

The reason to see it has nothing to do with facebook and/or Mark Zuckerberg being trendy right now (Time just named him man of the year), it's worth seeing for its own sake. I liked the Winklevi, they could've come off as fools but i felt just enough sympathy. So many of the women were airheads, but i guess that was the POV of the main characters.

I don't think Stone has to believe you to use your story. A lot of the JFK stuff is bullshit but he'll debate it passionately because he's a shit disturber. And used to make great movies.

But you don't have to be a weasel. He could've told the Winklekvi (love that word) that their idea was crap and walked away. He didn't have to prey on weak, needy Eduardo.

The film, as a cautionary tale, ok. But not that character i hope. Years ago, Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" was one thing but this guy's too much of an asshole. Besides, what has he actually accomplished? I mean, he's not Bill Gates or anything (yet). He still lives here.

There's a rumour that Fincher wants to make Rendezvous with Rama, i hope he does.

edit: 6hrs later, both my JFK and Gordon Gekko points appeared in a Cracked story (#5). I'm just sayin'. 

Last edited by beldar (2010-12-30 07:08:30)

David Fincher on Rendezvous with Rama:

"We want to make a movie where kids go out of the theatre and instead of buying an action figure they buy a telescope."

http://collider.com/david-fincher-inter … too/67432/

David Fincher: He Gets It.

I understand why people say it's boring but if you get that it's all about the suspense of what comes next, it's a great story. It's been a while but i seem to remember one of the astronauts was a polygamist or something. Good luck putting that in a Hollywood movie today.

Fincher's choice of Morgan Freeman is a little odd. He's in his mid-70s, who's he supposed to play?

Ah, a quick look through the interview found a quote that gets to the real problem with Ranma:

Ah, good info. Maybe he should just produce. On the other hand with Freeman acting it's less likely to turn into a Will Smith or Tom Cruise vehicle, which isn't what i'd like to see from that movie.