I never thought of The Social Network as sequelable. But yeah, that totally works. It could possibly be more interesting than the first one. I was so ready to click that like button till you said the film sucked. Can I give half a like?

@JustinJackFlash said:

I never thought of The Social Network as sequelable. But yeah, that totally works. It could possibly be more interesting than the first one. I was so ready to click that like button till you said the film sucked. Can I give half a like?

I don't think that's really possible, Justin.

Like what, pray tell?

@acontributor said:

They could talk about how Facebook banned people for talking about things that are generally accepted as fact now.

"(G)enerally accepted as fact [by some] now" doesn't make something a fact unless it is indeed a fact. Just saying.

@CelluloidFan said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

I never thought of The Social Network as sequelable. But yeah, that totally works. It could possibly be more interesting than the first one. I was so ready to click that like button till you said the film sucked. Can I give half a like?

I don't think that's really possible, Justin.

I know. Just a rhetorical question, dude.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@CelluloidFan said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

I never thought of The Social Network as sequelable. But yeah, that totally works. It could possibly be more interesting than the first one. I was so ready to click that like button till you said the film sucked. Can I give half a like?

I don't think that's really possible, Justin.

I know. Just a rhetorical question, dude.

Yeah, I figured you were kidding.

Rather than a sequel, it would be nice if someone did a remake that wasn't trying so painfully hard to make Zuckerberg into a likeable hero. I don't remember a thing about this movie (meaning it was so uninteresting) except that I got the clear impression that the whole production was playing it boringly safe with all the tired cliches of the underdog success story, as if the producer (Kevin Spacey if that's significant) just wanted to make a cookie cutter crowd pleaser without offering any real truth.

The whole thing seemed like one of those hastily made Hollywood films that are cranked out at the height of someone's fame in order to capitalize on the sensation while being afraid to say anything negative lest the sensation continue to rise. But now that Zuckerberg's candy apple facade has tarnished, it might be high time for a truthful or at least interesting version of the story to be brought to the screen.

@rooprect said:

Rather than a sequel, it would be nice if someone did a remake that wasn't trying so painfully hard to make Zuckerberg into a likeable hero. I don't remember a thing about this movie (meaning it was so uninteresting) except that I got the clear impression that the whole production was playing it boringly safe with all the tired cliches of the underdog success story, as if the producer (Kevin Spacey if that's significant) just wanted to make a cookie cutter crowd pleaser without offering any real truth.

The whole thing seemed like one of those hastily made Hollywood films that are cranked out at the height of someone's fame in order to capitalize on the sensation while being afraid to say anything negative lest the sensation continue to rise. But now that Zuckerberg's candy apple facade has tarnished, it might be high time for a truthful or at least interesting version of the story to be brought to the screen.

Right, it's like they made the opposite of the "warts-and-all" films about famous people that I know I tend to prefer.

@rooprect said:

Rather than a sequel, it would be nice if someone did a remake that wasn't trying so painfully hard to make Zuckerberg into a likeable hero. I don't remember a thing about this movie (meaning it was so uninteresting) except that I got the clear impression that the whole production was playing it boringly safe with all the tired cliches of the underdog success story, as if the producer (Kevin Spacey if that's significant) just wanted to make a cookie cutter crowd pleaser without offering any real truth.

The whole thing seemed like one of those hastily made Hollywood films that are cranked out at the height of someone's fame in order to capitalize on the sensation while being afraid to say anything negative lest the sensation continue to rise. But now that Zuckerberg's candy apple facade has tarnished, it might be high time for a truthful or at least interesting version of the story to be brought to the screen.

The film is oft called out for it's fabrication and bending of events in order to make Zuckerberg more of a creep than he actually was. I've read a bit on the actual story and the real life version sounds more like what you're accusing the film of being.

In the film Zuckerberg betrays his friend and co partner Eduardo Saverin, shunting him out of the company. And Saverin is portrayed as the innocent victim. But in real life Saverin was behaving questionably and if I remember correctly, doing things that put the company in jeopardy. So Zuckerberg wrestling control from him wasn't so clear cut evil.

So no, the film wasn't truthful. But with the opposite intention of sugarcoating things.

In fact the whole film portrayed Zuckerberg as arrogant, obnoxious, weird and petty.

@JustinJackFlash said:

In fact the whole film portrayed Zuckerberg as arrogant, obnoxious, weird and petty.

I think most film watchers might disagree. In fact Zuckerberg himself said that the film increased his traffic of fan mail. Tons of people wrote to tell him that the film inspired them to follow his footsteps. Zuckerberg's only gripe was that he said it showed him partying too hard.

Sure there was a degree of arrogance and cut-throat business practices but it's done in the same way Gordon Gecko was portrayed in Wall Street; these same traits paint him as the Machiavellian hero.

@rooprect said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

In fact the whole film portrayed Zuckerberg as arrogant, obnoxious, weird and petty.

I think most film watchers might disagree. In fact Zuckerberg himself said that the film increased his traffic of fan mail. Tons of people saying the film inspired them to follow his footsteps. Zuckerberg's only gripe was that he said it showed him partying too hard.

Sure there was a degree of arrogance and cut-throat business practices but it's done in the same way Gordon Gecko was portrayed in Wall Street; these same traits paint him as the Machiavellian hero.

I'm sure it did increase his fan mail. Almost any publicity is good publicity. And no matter how some people see the character it doesn't mean that was the intention. Hell, many people see Tony Montana as a hero. Gordon Gecko wasn't meant to be a hero or role model, it's just certain types who chose to take it that way. Remember, Wall Street was directed by Oliver Stone. Certainly not a guy who is going to champion a corrupt, white collar guy like Gecko. "Greed is good" was in no way supposed to be a mantra the film was encouraging.

And likewise, The Social Network is directed by the nihilistic David Fincher. A guy well know for his cynicism. The ending to the film shows Saverin cruelly shut out of the company as Zuckerberg sits up in his tower coldly basking in the glory. He is the villain of the piece.

@acontributor said:

I once met a girl who worked at Facebook and she literally talked about it non stop. It was Facebook this, facebook that, facebook facebook facebook. That went on for days until I mentioned Mark Zuckerberg having called Facebook users "dumb fucks" for trusting him with all of their personal info. That shut her up.

That's the thing. People don't see a person when they tap in their details, they see a website.

@mechajutaro said:

Everyone's pro-free speech, as long as this applies to speech which seems to confirm our own dogmas. Not so much, when it comes to speech that challenges our beliefs

This is what’s hilarious about the whole “free speech” fad. It has nothing to do with free speech; it’s just a rallying cry for each faction to shout louder.

Is it free speech to publish a step by step guide for a 14 year old girl to hang herself? Is it free speech to bully some kid to death? Apparently so because both are allowed. But nobody cares because they’re just obsessed with their own microscopic agenda.

I’d actually love to see a version of TSN that dives deep into this free speech BS without a hint of left/right politics. How about a plot where Zuckerberg has to come to grips with that young girl who livestreamed her suicide? At least that would make for more interesting cinema than the hackneyed political bickering or boring success-story flicks we’re all sick of. My gripe with TSN had nothing to do with its politics, I just thought it was unmemorable.

@mechajutaro said:

That story could be told in a short film..... Zuckerberg came to terms with the event in question, by going to sleep on a bed made of solid gold, in a mansion who's floors are paved with the exact same material

Haha I’m dyin at the short film screenplay. Yeah basically. Yeah.

On the subject of the courts getting involved in suicide & bullying, I totally agree our court system is woefully inadequate on both legal and moral grounds. This might be one of those legal points where the matter is best handled with the bar mentality where free speech is totally welcome as long as everyone accepts free fists. But seriously I think in India they have clear laws against “Abetment to Suicide” and that might provide a legal framework for internet policing in such cases.

I’m mostly concerned about Facebook & social media’s role when it comes to teens and even younger who are getting bullied & influenced into suicide. When minors are involved, the laws have to take this into account. Adults are allowed to send & request nudes, but don’t pull minors into ring. The same way, I think open talks about suicide serve a purpose for adults trying to understand it, but if you’re a grown man telling some young girl how to tie a noose then you’re just as bad as a pedo in my book. So I think it’s possible to figure out some legal guidelines for this sort of freedom of speech if we approach it surgically. The problem is, like you mentioned above, most of the freedom of speech debate is tainted by personal agendas. So there’s no surgery involved, everyone wants to whack it with a hammer.

@mechajutaro said:

Everyone's pro-free speech, as long as this applies to speech which seems to confirm our own dogmas. Not so much, when it comes to speech that challenges our beliefs.

Personally, I find myself to be rather pro-free speech, but if someone is simply going to deploy hate speech against me over and over again, I'm not so sure how supportive I am going to be of that.

I'm not gonna look up a bunch of B.S. arguments on the net; I'll simply state that I feel hate speech to be a form of free speech. But it's the form of free speech I'm least inclined to defend.

And I'll tell a person to go walk their dogma in a heartbeat.