The Social Network

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

Re: The Social Network

Postby TheButcher on Thu Jan 13, 2011 9:40 pm

DEADLINE EXCLUSIVE:
Aaron Sorkin's Full Screenplay For 'The Social Network' - Plus Q&A
PETE HAMMOND wrote:Deadline presents Aaron Sorkin's full screenplay here for The Social Network. Also, here is my interview with this frontrunner for Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar
User avatar
TheButcher
ZONE NEWS DIRECTOR
 
Posts: 17418
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:02 am
Location: The Bureau of Sabotage

Re: The Social Network

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Fri Jan 14, 2011 2:46 am

Thanks for the link, Butcher. I've been wanting to check out Sorkin's script.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9907
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: The Social Network

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Jan 17, 2011 8:38 am

I've never used Facebook but for some reason I wanted to see this movie and now I have. Not since THE HURT LOCKER have I watched a movie where I wasn't buying at least half of it but still enjoyed the film. Most of this thing does not ring true at all, not the characters, their relationships, the workings of these insitutions, the portrayal of the business world, the way most of the scenes play out, nothing. But it's still a good story in a stupid unresearched Hollywood screenwriter's perception of reality kind of way.

Ironically, the makers of this film, much like its main character Mark Zuckerberg, are unethical and ready to screw anybody over to make a buck and obtain some glory. I was talking to some friends just after I saw the film and they had already heard that the film cuts out the existence the real Mark Zuckerberg's girlfriend, who was with him before Facebook and is still with him. I did not know this when I was watching the movie. That right there prettymuch changes the classification of this film from 'biopic' to 'smear piece' seeing as the focus of this movie is how Zuckerberg alienates everybody and ends up all alone at the top, longing for forgiveness from the nice (fictitious) girl who dumped him and sparked the chain of events that lead to invention of Facebook.

The film explores the idea that somebody who is socially inept could change the way everybody socializes, thus making most of the planet more socially inept. This is plausible, even though it didn't really happen and would've been more interesting if it had.

Even though I enjoyed watching the film, I think it is a disgrace. David Fincher should be proud of his craft but ashamed of using for such a needless smear piece. I fully support any of the parties portrayed in suing the makers of this film.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Social Network

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:08 pm

I didn't see it as a smear piece at all. I figured while watching it that I was seeing a mostly-fictionalized account of the events. I don't think they painted Zuckerberg as a bad guy at all.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9907
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:16 pm

The film pretty much makes it a story about how a man becomes a God and other older gods and other men become vengeful/jealous. I also thought it was a really quite incisive picture of gender relations in the early 21st century with everyone being looked at like various commodities and the ingrained misogyny amongst both geek and jocks and how it exists for very different reasons. And it was that rare Hollywood American film that addressed class issues too.
So, power, sex, politics and betrayal directed by David Fincher, scripted by Aaron Sorkin (in a far more pessimistic mode that usaual, thought maybe that's Fincher's doing) wih great performances and a brilliant score.
This movie is excellent.
4 and a half out of 5.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Pacino86845 on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:31 pm

Wow Tony you make the movie sound so awesome, they should give YOU the awards!
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Re: The Social Network

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:40 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Social Network

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:44 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Image


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9907
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Name and brand bias in films

Postby Peven on Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:49 pm

it irks me how guys like Fincher who are darlings of the Hollywood scene get a free pass for any flaws in their movies, like fudging the truth on a film like this when other directors have been lambasted for it in their dramatic biopics...i think it is ironic that a movie about social networking is directed by a guy who is in the "in" crowd in the industry and benefits from it in how his work is received....
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby Spandau Belly on Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:04 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I didn't see it as a smear piece at all. I figured while watching it that I was seeing a mostly-fictionalized account of the events. I don't think they painted Zuckerberg as a bad guy at all.


The film starts with Zuckerberg acting like a complete Struggling Background Artist on a date talking about his love of hallow status. His girlfriend dumps him telling him something like "You'll probably go your whole life thinking people don't like you because you're smart, but really it's because you're an asshole."

Zuck goes home and makes a meanspirited website for boys to evaluate girls superficially. It shows how Zuck is changing socializing and using the internet to create hyper-socializing in which more people can be crueller more quickly through technology. While making this service Zuck is blogging all sorts of hate about the girl who dumped him showing that his vision of what technology is for is to spread nasty rumours faster and more cowardly.

Most of the film features him deceiving people, being outright rude, or a coward. The person he is nicest to seems to be Napster Timberlake. Napster shows he has the brains, the balls, and the vision for the business that Andrew Garfield lacks, but Zuck isn't really on the level in ditching Garfield. Zuck screws him out of his shares (in a scene where Garfield shows exactly why he isn't fit to be the business end of any company) once again, in a cowardly cold way.

So yeah, I'd say the movie mostly shows Zuck a cowardly traitor who got his start being vindictive to his nice cute ex-girlfriend and then somewhat ripped off some other dude's idea and succeeded because he had the good sense to let Napster show him how to develop it.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:29 pm

I think it's a bit more subtle that than Spandau - his girlfriend tells him the reason girls won't like him is cus he's an asshole etc etc and that line is really telling in setting up Zuckerberg as an insecure nerd who's got book smarts but comes to the realisation that success (with women, with money/business) comes from who you know not what you know and the image of yourself that you project (which is perfect explanation for the popularity of a facebook page where you can construct an image of yousrself to both navel gaze at and advertise). But at the start Zuckerberg just wants to be popular and cool, he's not even thinking about monetising his idea, he doesn't seem to be particularly calculating and Sean Parker sorta pulls him along like a force of nature with dreams of billions of dollars and rockstar status - any indictment of Zuckerberg is an indictment of all the systems and institutions involved and that makes this less of a smear and more of a genuine opinion/snapshot/what hve you into power and sex in the 21st century.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby so sorry on Mon Jan 17, 2011 6:38 pm

TonyWilson wrote:I think it's a bit more subtle that than Spandau - his girlfriend tells him the reason girls won't like him is cus he's an asshole etc etc and that line is really telling in setting up Zuckerberg as an insecure nerd who's got book smarts but comes to the realisation that success (with women, with money/business) comes from who you know not what you know and the image of yourself that you project (which is perfect explanation for the popularity of a facebook page where you can construct an image of yousrself to both navel gaze at and advertise). But at the start Zuckerberg just wants to be popular and cool, he's not even thinking about monetising his idea, he doesn't seem to be particularly calculating and Sean Parker sorta pulls him along like a force of nature with dreams of billions of dollars and rockstar status - any indictment of Zuckerberg is an indictment of all the systems and institutions involved and that makes this less of a smear and more of a genuine opinion/snapshot/what hve you into power and sex in the 21st century.



Like.
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15698
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: The Social Network

Postby Ribbons on Mon Jan 17, 2011 7:49 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Ironically, the makers of this film, much like its main character Mark Zuckerberg, are unethical and ready to screw anybody over to make a buck and obtain some glory. I was talking to some friends just after I saw the film and they had already heard that the film cuts out the existence the real Mark Zuckerberg's girlfriend, who was with him before Facebook and is still with him. I did not know this when I was watching the movie. That right there prettymuch changes the classification of this film from 'biopic' to 'smear piece' seeing as the focus of this movie is how Zuckerberg alienates everybody and ends up all alone at the top, longing for forgiveness from the nice (fictitious) girl who dumped him and sparked the chain of events that lead to invention of Facebook.


Inaccuracy in this movie is a problem, as it is with most adaptations or stories based on real life. However one common misconception that's been going around since before The Social Network even came out is that it smears Mark Zuckerberg's character unfairly, when if anything telling the truth would make him seem way worse. In the movie, Zuckerberg's ascendancy over the "Winklevii" is portrayed as a Revenge of the Nerds scenario, where he had the better idea and had the misfortune of pissing off a bunch of poor little rich boys who were used to getting their way. The Accidental Billionaires tilts the scales in the opposite direction, particularly due to this excerpt from a chat Zuckerberg had with one of his friends:

MZ: Yeah, I'm going to fuck them.

MZ: Probably right in the year.

MZ: Ear.*


He also used Facebook to hack into Harvard students' accounts, and called them a bunch of "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their personal information. Not only was all of this glossed over in the film, but any interpersonal dysfunctions were passed off as the side effect of his visionary, borderline-autistic mind, whereas in person he just comes across as an awkward, sweaty douche. And the one incontrovertible fact that Sorkin and Fincher build their profile of Zuckerberg around -- the "Jessica Alona is a bitch" blog post he wrote the night he made Facesmash -- raises a lot of questions if he already had a different girlfriend at the time, none of which have good answers. If you explain that his cruel take on "Hot or Not?" for Harvard and his attempt to become cool were all done to get the attention of a girl he was still hung up on, it becomes understandable, almost even sweet, considering his social naivete. But if he had no problems finding friends, was just in it for the money, and considered relationships, privacy and business partners to be disposable, then he's actually more like Movie Sean Parker than Movie Mark Zuckerberg. So I agree with you that The Social Network either got a lot wrong or deliberately altered the truth to fit their own version of events -- but instead of suing them, Zuckerberg should be giving them some kind of cash reward for making him seem a lot nicer and more interesting than he actually is.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 13933
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Re: The Social Network

Postby caruso_stalker217 on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:01 am

You guys think this stuff out and say it better than I do.
Image
User avatar
caruso_stalker217
TOO AGED FOR THIS MALARKEY
 
Posts: 9907
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:03 pm
Location: Oregon, US of A

Re: The Social Network

Postby magicmonkey on Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:25 am

so sorry wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:I think it's a bit more subtle that than Spandau - his girlfriend tells him the reason girls won't like him is cus he's an asshole etc etc and that line is really telling in setting up Zuckerberg as an insecure nerd who's got book smarts but comes to the realisation that success (with women, with money/business) comes from who you know not what you know and the image of yourself that you project (which is perfect explanation for the popularity of a facebook page where you can construct an image of yousrself to both navel gaze at and advertise).



Like.


I liked this reading too, and the issues of modern day relationships, but I ultimately find it more indicative of the superficiality of the filmmakers than as an intentioned critique. The boat race section for instance was pure indulgence, I have zero idea as to why it is even in the movie, superfluous? Superficial? An example of good honest competition? Shakespearian summation? I feel the movie was more propaganda for the culturally, socially elite of the traditional variety. An epic conservatism wankfest and how they (entrenched in traditional society and its ways are) truly have little to fear from socially inept slimeballs and social climbers whose soul/sole motivation is simply sex and power. So, down with the oiks, as it were.
magicmonkey
I AM fucking Zen
 
Posts: 6032
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:26 am
Location: Shanghizzo

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 7:37 am

Yeah the Henley Regatta - hmm, it does feel like indulgence, just some cool ass visuals and music. But maybe (and it really is just a maybe) there's a little more going on. I think the first clue is the music; Hall of the Mountain King, a piece that's glorious and manic and royal and it's deployed when we see the ostensibly upper class godlike Winklevii in the home of the class system, good ole Britain where they not only lose the boat race - a total humiliation but are then snubbed by the prince (not sure who he's meant to be in real life but he's royalty). The whole section is just a demonstration of hierachy and it show that even people like the twins are beholden/in awe of something larger and more powerful than them and it's only after all that the hold out Tyler (or the other one, I forget his name) agrees to sue Zuckerberg, so while I'm inclined to monkey's reading of the piece I think there was a little bit of tension between Sorkin's script and Fincher's direction which led to the film being quite cooly critical in some places and overly shallow in others.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:32 am

I agree with you guys in saying that there is more to this movie than simply smearing Zuckerberg and I feel I did say that in my initial post, but definately not as much as I dwelled on this film's treatment of its main character. I was actually impressed at how they were able to criticize Facebook itself with stuff like how Andrew Garfield's girlfriend was angry at him because he hadn't updated his relationship status or how Zuck gets inspired to add that relationship status field in the first place because one of his buddies wants to cyberstalk some girl rather than just talk to her. I think the movie criticized Facebook as much as they possibly could without losing track of the story or getting heavyhanded or drifting off and making some movie like SURROGATES.

However, the relationship with the Winkelvoss twins didn't play for me the same way it did for Ribbons and some of you other guys. I guess I didn't hate those guys and I thought the movie was fairly kind to them. Sure they're vain and elitist, but I mean, what, because they're rich they deserve to have a webmaster they hired not do his job and steal their idea? They seem to believe in their code and being honourable Harvard men and settling things honestly face to face except that Harvard doesn't care about them and Zuck evades them. And it doesn't really feel like revenge of the nerds to me because it's not like Zuck is rebelling against elitism or exposing the silliness of social pecking orders in anyway, Zuck is just pursuing it in his own way.

As for whether a realistic portrayal of Zuck would've been more damning, I can't really say because I don't know that much about him. But I do stand by my statement that it is smearing to portray him as a man who alienates everybody and is motivated by being an outsider with no real human connection when in real life he did have a steady romantic relationship through this whole time. I'd say the movie shows him like a nerd Scarface when he's maybe closer to a nerd Michael Corleone.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:12 pm

i see a lot of "interpretations" by people who choose to always assume the best possible reason for aspects of the movie, giving Fincher the benefit of the doubt across the board. that is exactly what i am talking about when it comes to guys like Fincher who are "in" and benefit from that status. have the same exact movie with Brett Ratner's name attached as director and i guarantee you that a lot of the people lauding this movie would be tearing it down for the very flaws they are now rationalizing away...
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:17 pm

What flaws specifically?
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:21 pm

TonyWilson wrote:What flaws specifically?


the inaccuracies and misrepresentations, and things like the un-needed boat race...all discussed and excused
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:24 pm

Or discussed and explained maybe? In the case of the Boat race that's what it ultimately feels like to me given the themes in the rest of the film.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:56 pm

I think guys like Fincher do get more forgiveness from audiences to mess with facts real living people's lives when making "biopics".

The silliest one I can think of is probably AMERICAN GANGSTER, where they decided they wanted to do a juxtaposition thing of having a good cop who is a bad family man versus a gangster who is a good family man but destructive to his community. They had Russel Crowe's character in a child custody battle and many scenes discussing his poor absentee fathering, when in the real life, the guy Crowe was playing never actually fathered any children. The real guy mostly laughed it off.

A friend told me that Justin Timberlake asked Shawn Parker to spend time with him to research him for THE SOCIAL NETWORK and Parker wouldn't hang out with Timberlake and told him to play the role any way he wanted because he'd seen the script and didn't feel it represented his life at all.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:59 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Or discussed and explained maybe? In the case of the Boat race that's what it ultimately feels like to me given the themes in the rest of the film.


you say discussed and explained, I say rationalized and excused....thing is people CHOOSE to assume the best when they like a film-maker and the worst when they don't like them. a good bit of how people assess a movie is based on their predisposition toward the director before seeing it, and when a director like Fincher is "in" it really helps how anything they do is received because any possible flaw or weakness in their movies can be talked away and rationalized into a positive....in fact, that is something that could be said about art in general, "Art School Confidential" did a great job of portraying it...
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:14 pm

Except that Ratner has never done anything remotely in the same league as Seven or The Game or Fight Club or Zodiac or The West Wing and Sports Night, perhaps when he does people will look at his work in a more favourable light.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 1:52 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Except that Ratner has never done anything remotely in the same league as Seven or The Game or Fight Club or Zodiac or The West Wing and Sports Night, perhaps when he does people will look at his work in a more favourable light.


i think each piece of work should be judged on its own

"The Game"? really? that is an example you use for quality? fail in my book, contrived bullshit that expects more suspension of disbelief than the Matrix movies did. while "Zodiac" is a good solid film it isn't great, "Panic Room" is weak sauce, and i also happen to think that "Seven" is greatly over-rated, and the biggest reason for Fight Club's quality imo is Pitt and Norton's performance more then direction, though it could have been messed up with a poor director so i give Fincher credit there, but "Alien 3" is a fucking piece of shit, so I am also not as enamored with everything Fincher as others may be...
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby Hermanator X on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:01 pm

Peven wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:Except that Ratner has never done anything remotely in the same league as Seven or The Game or Fight Club or Zodiac or The West Wing and Sports Night, perhaps when he does people will look at his work in a more favourable light.


i think each piece of work should be judged on its own

while "Zodiac" is a good solid film it isn't great, "Panic Room" is weak sauce, and i also happen to think that "Seven" is greatly over-rated, and the biggest reason for Fight Club's quality imo is Pitt and Norton's performance more then direction, though it could have been messed up with a poor director so i give Fincher credit there, but "Alien 3" is a fucking piece of shit, so I am also not as enamored with everything Fincher as others may be...


If your judging it on its own, then why is it necessary to follow that up with a dissection of the rest of finchers movies?
Maybe those who do like the movie, like the movie itself, not necessarily just because its fincher. That means they are discussing what they feel to be the points of the movie, rather than giving it a free pass and making excuses. The fact it is fincher, and they do like it is another plus for him and his career. I dont really read the defenders as trying to convince themselves to like it, just that they already do.
I thought it was great, and I do enjoy most of his output, apart from Alien 3, and the game, but I do kind of want to revisit that one, as I was a lot younger at the time, and it wasnt quite my thing then.
...and so forth.
User avatar
Hermanator X
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:55 pm
Location: Kongsberg, Norway, This Town needs an enema

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:12 pm

Off topic but The Game is fantastic, and ok, appeal to authority here but Criterion agree with me.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:16 pm

Hermanator X wrote:
Peven wrote:
TonyWilson wrote:Except that Ratner has never done anything remotely in the same league as Seven or The Game or Fight Club or Zodiac or The West Wing and Sports Night, perhaps when he does people will look at his work in a more favourable light.


i think each piece of work should be judged on its own

while "Zodiac" is a good solid film it isn't great, "Panic Room" is weak sauce, and i also happen to think that "Seven" is greatly over-rated, and the biggest reason for Fight Club's quality imo is Pitt and Norton's performance more then direction, though it could have been messed up with a poor director so i give Fincher credit there, but "Alien 3" is a fucking piece of shit, so I am also not as enamored with everything Fincher as others may be...


If your judging it on its own, then why is it necessary to follow that up with a dissection of the rest of finchers movies?
Maybe those who do like the movie, like the movie itself, not necessarily just because its fincher. That means they are discussing what they feel to be the points of the movie, rather than giving it a free pass and making excuses. The fact it is fincher, and they do like it is another plus for him and his career. I dont really read the defenders as trying to convince themselves to like it, just that they already do.
I thought it was great, and I do enjoy most of his output, apart from Alien 3, and the game, but I do kind of want to revisit that one, as I was a lot younger at the time, and it wasnt quite my thing then.


Herm, look at the preceding posts. i was merely responding to Tony's assertion about "body of work" as if Fincher had earned a positive predisposition from viewers, and was simply stating that i wasn't as enamored with Fincher's body of work as others, which i why i don't have the predisposition of liking anything with his name on it, each movie has to earn it with me.
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:17 pm

are you saying that you think any movie that Criterion has released is fantastic, Tony?
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:21 pm

Peven, if I'm saying something I'll actually say it, you don't need to worry about inferring things from my posts.
And I don't have a predisposition to like Fincher's work which is why I didn't name all his or all of Sorkin's work just the stuff I think is good.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Fried Gold on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:27 pm

Due to some fancy Greasemonkey coding I may have missed several parts of this thread. But I'm told somebody has said most of the films that David Fincher's directed aren't very good.

I can't believe anyone who posts on the Zone would have such a farking idiotic opinion, so maybe it's a spammer/troller or something. Mods, check into it please.
User avatar
Fried Gold
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 13930
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:28 pm
Location: ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░

Re: The Social Network

Postby Spandau Belly on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:29 pm

I agree with Peven that bias in fact does exist in this world.

I think there are some audiences who get sold on a filmmaker's early stuff and as long as the filmmaker's later stuff at least reminds audiences of his earlier stuff, it gets a pass by association. Filmmakers who exploit some specific fetish and as long as they keep bringing back that fetish, their fans don't really bother to evaluate the overall film it's part of. The audience is just happy to see those hallmarks. I'm pretty sure most of us are guilty of having a fondness for at least one such filmmaker.

But I wouldn't say Fincher is one of those filmmakers who has a signature style or coasts on recycling the familiar. He's had several different looks and feels to different films dealing with different subjects in different genres. I think his body of work actually demands to be evaluated on a film by film basis.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:31 pm

TonyWilson wrote:Peven, if I'm saying something I'll actually say it, you don't need to worry about inferring things from my posts.
And I don't have a predisposition to like Fincher's work which is why I didn't name all his or all of Sorkin's work just the stuff I think is good.


ok, so explain the reasoning behind stating that Criterion thinks that "The Game" is good...
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:34 pm

Fried Gold wrote:Due to some fancy Greasemonkey coding I may have missed several parts of this thread. But I'm told somebody has said most of the films that David Fincher's directed aren't very good.

I can't believe anyone who posts on the Zone would have such a farking idiotic opinion, so maybe it's a spammer/troller or something. Mods, check into it please.



oh no, someone isn't running with the rest of the herd, we have got to do something about that, don't we....
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:35 pm

It's fairly obvious reasoning Pev, I'll wager most anyone else here gets it so I'll give them a chance first if they want to give their cognitive skills an easy workout
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:38 pm

Peven wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:Due to some fancy Greasemonkey coding I may have missed several parts of this thread. But I'm told somebody has said most of the films that David Fincher's directed aren't very good.

I can't believe anyone who posts on the Zone would have such a farking idiotic opinion, so maybe it's a spammer/troller or something. Mods, check into it please.



oh no, someone isn't running with the rest of the herd, we have got to do something about that, don't we....


Yes Peven you are a maverick.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:42 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:I agree with Peven that bias in fact does exist in this world.

I think there are some audiences who get sold on a filmmaker's early stuff and as long as the filmmaker's later stuff at least reminds audiences of his earlier stuff, it gets a pass by association. Filmmakers who exploit some specific fetish and as long as they keep bringing back that fetish, their fans don't really bother to evaluate the overall film it's part of. The audience is just happy to see those hallmarks. I'm pretty sure most of us are guilty of having a fondness for at least one such filmmaker.

But I wouldn't say Fincher is one of those filmmakers who has a signature style or coasts on recycling the familiar. He's had several different looks and feels to different films dealing with different subjects in different genres. I think his body of work actually demands to be evaluated on a film by film basis.


which is pretty much what i have been saying. he has made some solid films. even though i think "Seven" is over-rated, because people fall over themselves for it, i still think it is a good movie. "Fight Club" is a very good movie. "Zodiac" is very solid, if somewhat slow moving and not exactly as gripping as you might think a movie about a serial killer would be. i have no problem taking each of his movies as works on their own, for good or bad. problem is, with guys like Fincher who have the "in" aura about them you can't say anything about their work even somewhat critical without drawing an offended reaction from those in the herd, as evidenced by this thread....
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:45 pm

TonyWilson wrote:It's fairly obvious reasoning Pev, I'll wager most anyone else here gets it so I'll give them a chance first if they want to give their cognitive skills an easy workout



TonyWilson wrote:Peven, if I'm saying something I'll actually say it, you don't need to worry about inferring things from my posts.


make up your mind already....which is it, either i expect you to come right out and state something or am i to use my cognitive skills to infer what i think you are saying?
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:48 pm

The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Inference and implication are not the same as reasoning.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:50 pm

TonyWilson wrote:
Peven wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:Due to some fancy Greasemonkey coding I may have missed several parts of this thread. But I'm told somebody has said most of the films that David Fincher's directed aren't very good.

I can't believe anyone who posts on the Zone would have such a farking idiotic opinion, so maybe it's a spammer/troller or something. Mods, check into it please.



oh no, someone isn't running with the rest of the herd, we have got to do something about that, don't we....


Yes Peven you are a maverick.


look, you want to try to twist things in order to be insulting, go ahead, it isn't as if i am not used to it from you or other mods here. you want to try to mock me out because i have a viewpoint that doesn't fall in line with yours and the rest of the crowd and i don't have a problem with voicing it, knock yourself out. of course, the irony of you doing it in a thread about a movie based on the birth of a social networking site is rich....
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:52 pm

Yep you are a rebel of film criticism.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Peven on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:00 pm

see, Tony, it is that charming personality of yours in modding that has helped grow this place to the the great number of people and high traffic that we now enjoy....
Image

perversely contrarian since 2005
Peven
Is This Real Life?
 
Posts: 14661
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:45 am
Location: Group W bench

Re: The Social Network

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:03 pm

keep fighting the good fight against the mods, Pev, never falter, never doubt a new world is just around the corner if you hold on tight.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: The Social Network

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:03 pm

Point 1. You guys are hypocrits. You all say that this movie is not about Facebook and hardly references it at all. Yet from reading your posts, I see that there is mention of Facebook a lot in this film, and that this film IS about Facebook and how it woks, what it can be used for, etc. So you guys are wrong. I'm not seeing this shit.

Point 2.

I agree with Peven. You slap a director's name onto any film and based on the output and opinion of that guys' previous films, people will automatically overpraise or underpraise his new film based on association. You slap Spielberg's name onto anything and people will say greater things about it if you slapped Uwe Boll\s name onto the same films. you all know it's true. The fact is, that people here are so far up their own asses about being wannabe film experts that they do this 'association' game with all known director's films that they see.

I swear this whole Social Netwank crap that people go on about is all due to this "Fincher! Fin-CHER! FINCHEERR!!! Oooh I've just FINCHERED all over the place!" cock sucking. Get over yourselves and him, people.

I was in fact, thinking of making a thread about how we automatically, consciously or subconsciously, judge a film just by a director's name slapped on it. I was gonna do a game where we swap director's name over one movie. See how the critics judge it then.

Bit like the experiment where art critics were given a piece of art which was just made by an elephant with a paintbrush. The critics raved about it, then when they were told that it wasn't by an artist but just an animal who didn't know what it was doing, the critics killed themselves over their humiliation, and their blood was used by the animal to make another piece of 'art' then it was given to other critics, and the cycle repeated itself.

It's a bit like if you watch a rubbish film, then at the end you see Directed by [insert your fave director's name here] and then you rejudge it an think "Oh actually that was great because the director was thinking this and that, what a 'revelationary' change of style for him it's GREAT!" etc.

This thread is upmost proof of my theories. I know people here think along these lines, don't try to argue it.

You all now it's true.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Social Network

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:08 pm

Peven wrote:see, Tony, it is that charming personality of yours in modding that has helped grow this place to the the great number of people and high traffic that we now enjoy....


LIKE!
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Social Network

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:10 pm

TonyWilson wrote:The two statements are not mutually exclusive. Inference and implication are not the same as reasoning.


I have no idea what this means. How can you argue with someone who can't even talk coherently?

Removes Friend
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: The Social Network

Postby so sorry on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:12 pm

TonyWilson wrote:keep fighting the good fight against the mods, Pev, never falter, never doubt a new world is just around the corner if you hold on tight.



Zone 3.0?
User avatar
so sorry
Deacon Blues
 
Posts: 15698
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 11:29 am

Re: Name and brand bias in films

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:14 pm

Dream a little bigger, SS - Zone Free.0
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Re: Name and brand bias in films

Postby Cpt Kirks 2pay on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:17 pm

Me and Peven didn't conspire to make a thread that would teach intelligence to the Zone, just to have 2 Mods mock it in the above unintellectual posts.
User avatar
Cpt Kirks 2pay
The Dark Tower
 
Posts: 16616
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Name and brand bias in films

Postby TonyWilson on Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:18 pm

No, I created the thread so I could mock it.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests