i think that's great news for the startup community. if startups weren't mainstream before, so many kids were inspired to get off their ass after seeing the movie.
as for the flick, i think is was very entertaining, but the most ironic thing about it (outside of the love story) was how close to reality it was. the way everything has played out over the last six years lent itself very well towards a screenplay.
I finally saw this last night. It wasn't a BAD movie: Reznor's score was magnificent, they didn't mince hacker jargon and it was interesting enough to sit through. It boggles my mind that it took Best Picture. Was 2010 really that bad for movies?
I should mention I was actually blown away by not only the technical correctness of the programmer jargon, but the fairly accurate representation of hacker wordplay, i.e. referring to the Winklevoss brothers as "The Winklevi."
I was happy to see that Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross won for the score they composed. Reznor has been one of the most forward thinking guys in the music industry, adapting to the new environment of leaks, torrents, and social networking, without resorting to legal threats against his fans (like Metallica or Gene Simmons for example).
Rather than 2010 being a weak year in film, could your taste differ from that of movie buffs/critics because I don't think I saw anything but top-tier reviews for The Social Network. I thought it was superb.
It wasn't an overt knock on TSN -- I just don't watch many movies, so I really don't know what to expect. Aside from the geek jargon and a bit of drama, I suppose I was surprised that it was Best Picture material. I think the only movie I saw on the big screen in 2010 was TRON Legacy, which was technically part of the 2011 movie year anyway.
Cool, it deserved it. It was an excellent movie. The Social Network was my own personal pick for "best movie of 2010", although - to be fair - I didn't see every movie released in 2010. But I would rank it above Inception, Shutter Island, Tron:Legacy, True Grit, Harry Potter, and Red - out of the other good movies that come to mind from last year.
Nice pacing, good acting, great score, inspirational, entertaining, thought-provoking, it really had everything. It was a great trip inside the world that a lot of us live in / aspire to live in. Maybe a non-hacker wouldn't see it in quite the same light, but I really thought it was just excellent.
I thought "The Social Network" was decent, but I was actually expecting more from Fincher and Sorkin. It could have been a student film, in some ways. I thought many of the characters were fairly two-dimensional and the "two lawsuit" structure was a little forced. It made me think of the examples in a screenwriting class I took in college. (Oh, and it's not a world I live in or aspire to live in.) My expectations must have been too high after all of the great press it received. It had so many raving critics and fans that I had a long period of people telling me I "had to see it" - but I didn't see it until it came out on DVD and then was fairly disappointed. If it is THE film of 'this generation', as some claim, then I think we're in trouble.
I think "Inception" should have won. It was much more creative and thought-provoking, and I thought the acting was also better. Of course, I had no preconceived notions about it - other than a general idea that it was apparently a goldmine of meme material for sites like Reddit. I've only seen snippets of "Black Swan," but the acting looks better than both "The Social Network" and "Inception."
No, Inception had a mediocre direction, atrocious dialogue, wooden characters, overcomplicated-without-being-deep plot. Not that I take the Golden Globes seriously, but I'm certain that Inception did not deserve the award.
As it happens, I saw both of these films for the first time in the last week or so.
I'd say that Inception was a hugely ambitious film which didn't quite hit its mark, while The Social Network was a much simpler, much less ambitious film which just happened to be nearly flawless. Inception was a fifteen-course lobster meal where a couple of the courses were a little salty, while The Social Network was just a dish of masterfully-prepared spaghetti, far better than spaghetti has any right to be. Which of these you think is more worthy of recognition is a bit of a broader question.
And Black Swan was a masterpiece too, way better than The Social Network IMO.
IMDB seems to agree that Inception > Black Swan > TSN which makes me wonder who are the judges of golden globes ?
Also best director and best screenplay? That seems like a pretty big snub to Nolan for Inception. Social network was a pretty good movie, but it's hard to believe it would have done so well if everyone wasn't so gooey in the pants for facebook.
I don't use Facebook. I'm that friend everyone knows as the one that refuses to join. I like Reznor's work though so was familiar with that and perhaps somewhat predisposed to liking that aspect of the film.
I thought The Social Network was excellent and, though I really liked Inception too, would've picked Social Network as the better of the two. The introductory scenes were excellent. The characters were solid and believable, the tech side of things was handled very well and those involved collectively made a boardroom-and-laptops film into something impressive and enjoyable.
After the first time I saw Inception, I had a sneaking suspicion that my opinion of it might evolve a bit like that of The Matrix - huge at the time, but a bit cheesy down the track. I know the sequels amp the cheese, but they are mostly cringe-worthy now when repeats show up on TV.
The movie itself (I saw it twice) was excellent. Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross' score, in particular, blew me away - I saw it a second time just to enjoy the soundscape (note: You can buy the 19 tracks, in your preferred format, for $5 from http://www.nullco.com/TSN/) - the only other score I've ever enjoyed so much was Vangelis's Blade Runner. Reznor/Ross will win the Oscar hands down.
In terms of fairness, I thought that it was a little harsh towards Eduardo Saverin's contribution, and probably made Mark Zuckerberg out as a more sympathetic character than what really went down. Ironically, my "non-valley" friends saw the movie in a completely opposite light - which, too some degree, is a huge credit to the great direction, acting and screen play. So many people could see precisely the same movie, and come out with entirely different conclusions. The screenplay didn't pander, promote, or manipulate - it told an entertaining story in a way that allowed the audience to interpret based on their own background. I really think the Social Network deserved to win Best Picture, here's hoping the Academy thinks so as well.
This is the thing that bothers me about the film; I just don't know how what happens in the film relates to what really happened, and even if I cared to find out I'd only hear a bunch of conflicting versions, and many of the key people have by now been paid serious money to never tell their versions again. Was Saverin's contribution underplayed? Overplayed? What about the Winklevi? Is Zuckerberg more of a jerk than he comes across or less of a jerk? I don't know, I'll never know, and I don't especially care, except that I will forever have one unreliable version of the true story in my head.
21 comments
[ 5.7 ms ] story [ 58.5 ms ] threadas for the flick, i think is was very entertaining, but the most ironic thing about it (outside of the love story) was how close to reality it was. the way everything has played out over the last six years lent itself very well towards a screenplay.
I should mention I was actually blown away by not only the technical correctness of the programmer jargon, but the fairly accurate representation of hacker wordplay, i.e. referring to the Winklevoss brothers as "The Winklevi."
IMO, 2009 was a weakish year.
Nice pacing, good acting, great score, inspirational, entertaining, thought-provoking, it really had everything. It was a great trip inside the world that a lot of us live in / aspire to live in. Maybe a non-hacker wouldn't see it in quite the same light, but I really thought it was just excellent.
I think "Inception" should have won. It was much more creative and thought-provoking, and I thought the acting was also better. Of course, I had no preconceived notions about it - other than a general idea that it was apparently a goldmine of meme material for sites like Reddit. I've only seen snippets of "Black Swan," but the acting looks better than both "The Social Network" and "Inception."
I'd say that Inception was a hugely ambitious film which didn't quite hit its mark, while The Social Network was a much simpler, much less ambitious film which just happened to be nearly flawless. Inception was a fifteen-course lobster meal where a couple of the courses were a little salty, while The Social Network was just a dish of masterfully-prepared spaghetti, far better than spaghetti has any right to be. Which of these you think is more worthy of recognition is a bit of a broader question.
lol yes, i'm easy to amuse :D
I thought The Social Network was excellent and, though I really liked Inception too, would've picked Social Network as the better of the two. The introductory scenes were excellent. The characters were solid and believable, the tech side of things was handled very well and those involved collectively made a boardroom-and-laptops film into something impressive and enjoyable.
After the first time I saw Inception, I had a sneaking suspicion that my opinion of it might evolve a bit like that of The Matrix - huge at the time, but a bit cheesy down the track. I know the sequels amp the cheese, but they are mostly cringe-worthy now when repeats show up on TV.
In terms of fairness, I thought that it was a little harsh towards Eduardo Saverin's contribution, and probably made Mark Zuckerberg out as a more sympathetic character than what really went down. Ironically, my "non-valley" friends saw the movie in a completely opposite light - which, too some degree, is a huge credit to the great direction, acting and screen play. So many people could see precisely the same movie, and come out with entirely different conclusions. The screenplay didn't pander, promote, or manipulate - it told an entertaining story in a way that allowed the audience to interpret based on their own background. I really think the Social Network deserved to win Best Picture, here's hoping the Academy thinks so as well.