LobotomyBaby posted:

JoePearson posted:

Richard posted:

JoePearson posted:

A Bad Review, but does it have a point?

Is it Old Media bashing New?

I don't even bother reading reviews. If you let others tell you how to feel about something, then....FAIL. What's important is the way you experienced it.

Did you sense what the article is saying though?

yeah, that's not a good review. not that he was saying the movie was bad. but, let me give an analogy why it was a bad review..

if a former army ranger decides to review the movie..Basic and decides to write 4 paragraphs about how certain things wouldn't be like actual basic training for the army rangers...that's a bad review.

for one..yes, they're probably right. but, the army ranger himself only has his experience to gather from. and it's a fucking movie. tell us how the movie was. not could you see this happening in real life.

That's not what I'm trying to bring up. Is the writer presenting Mark Z, and crew as socially inept, only trying to boost Facebook and one up each other. No need to curse at me. Are we not allowed to look passed 'It's cool' or 'It sucked" ?

romeo_void posted:

Findaway posted:

Also, it's funny how you notice other fans when you see them point to Trent's name on the screen. Awesome.

i totally did this, haha!

though my movie experienced was a bit tarnished by giggling teeny boppers texting thru the entire movie, i still really enjoyed the film. i'll also echo what others have been saying, it's a movie about jealousy, greed, and what an idea that makes a lot of money does to a group of friends. facebook is that idea, but it's not a movie about facebook. so if you don't like facebook, don't let that stop you from watching the movie. it's very well acted, solid performances all around. one of the best movies of the year.

and i also had a geek moment when i heard a Dead Kennedys song used in a scene. i started singing right along "California! Uber Alles!"

yeah, me and bro laughed. it said ..music by trent reznor and atticus ross
he leaned over and said "who are those guys?"

If anyone replies to me, PM me please. I get paranoid about reviews in this thread, since I'm not into them. Thanks!

JoePearson posted:

A Bad Review, but does it have a point?

Is it Old Media bashing New?

I thought the writer was a bit pompous, name dropping that he's a professor at Harvard and not getting to the point. Lots of "filler."

And he lost credibility with:

Zuckerberg is a rightful hero of our time. I want my kids to admire him.

A hero? Are you kidding me? He didn't run into a burning building to save lives, he didn't plan D-Day, he invented facebook, give me a break.

But to answer your question, I think this was, at least part of his point:

The total and absolute absurdity of the world where the engines of a federal lawsuit get cranked up to adjudicate the hurt feelings (because “our idea was stolen!”) of entitled Harvard undergraduates is completely missed by Sorkin. We can’t know enough from the film to know whether there was actually any substantial legal claim here. Sorkin has been upfront about the fact that there are fabrications aplenty lacing the story. But from the story as told, we certainly know enough to know that any legal system that would allow these kids to extort $65 million from the most successful business this century should be ashamed of itself. Did Zuckerberg breach his contract? Maybe, for which the damages are more like $650, not $65 million. Did he steal a trade secret? Absolutely not. Did he steal any other “property”? Absolutely not—the code for Facebook was his, and the “idea” of a social network is not a patent. It wasn’t justice that gave the twins $65 million; it was the fear of a random and inefficient system of law. That system is a tax on innovation and creativity. That tax is the real villain here, not the innovator it burdened.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/04/2010 01:47PM by RhettButler.

Cool article. Interesting how it all came together.

We saw it twice. It's really good. I wish I could've gone to a decent school like Harvard.
Then I'd never skip the alumni meetings. I might've gone to my graduation too. LOL

David Fincher - Yes
Trent Reznor - Yes
Mark Zuckerberg - No

Not a facebook fan. If it was about just about anyone else, I'd go see it.

Will check out the soundtrack though!

Reconfigure posted:

David Fincher - Yes
Trent Reznor - Yes
Mark Zuckerberg - No

Not a facebook fan. If it was about just about anyone else, I'd go see it.

Will check out the soundtrack though!

Trent posted on nin.com about how the movie is not really about facebook:

trent_reznor posted:

And for those of you "morally opposed" to seeing a movie about FB: It's not a movie about FB - it's a story about creation, greed, entitlement, power, justification, revenge and all the moral questions that arise. And it's funny. And there's girls in their underwear. And you can dance to it.
Go see it!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2010 01:48PM by RhettButler.

Just saw it.

I loved it.

Mark Zuckerberg is a prick.

The score was great. Glad I held off on listening to it.

SPOILERS:



well, i think the film doesn't really portray Zuckerberg completely as a prick. kinda like the assistant said, "it's not that you're an asshole, you just try so hard to be."

at least that's what i gathered what the movie was saying about him.

i think it was mostly napster's founder that pushed Mark's best friend out of the company.

and as far as the whole feud with his ex ...i think that just showed us he was a very uncouth person who had trouble communicating with people in general.

i do hope edwardo? (co-founder of FB ) got half of the company's worth though. i was hoping for a whopping number at the end credits but it said "undisclosed amount" which is usually a very large number.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2010 12:50PM by LobotomyBaby.

LobotomyBaby posted:

SPOILERS:




i do hope edwardo? (co-founder of FB ) got half of the company's worth though. i was hoping for a whopping number at the end credits but it said "undisclosed amount" which is usually a very large number.

From things I've read, and gathered on my own I think Eduardo may have gotten something around 1.5 billion.

^^What he said.

In fact, let me restate. You're making a mistake if you do not see this movie simply because of ANY pre-determinations.

Simply put, great acting, incredibly perfect score, and definitely an interesting if not engaging plotline. I can now understand all the controversy this movie previously (and is probably still) the cause of.

I give it a 10/10. If the music wasn't so great, however, I'd still give it a 9/10. But seriously, they say in film production that music and background sound can really change the atmosphere and mood of motion picture. This movie proves that to the T.

Great job Trent and Atticus. Also did anybody notice that Kevin Spacey was the Executive Producer? Awesome right?!

I think you underestimate how many people a web server can hold.
Have you ever tried to get onto nin.com when something new was coming out?
The How to Destroy Angels stored crashed, and that was probably less than 22k people.

morakanabad posted:

I have no hard numbers to back any of this up, and we're only talking about a movie script, but...

1. 22,000 hits != 22,000 people (unless each person only requests data once)
2. Harvard's undergrad population is well under 10,000.
3. 22,000 hits in two hours equals 11,000 per hour... equals 183 and change per minute... equals a hair over three per second. Hit up any web server that tells you how long it took to query its database and generate a page, and the number is likely to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.05 to 0.1 seconds.
4. A high-end web server circa 1995 had about 16 megs of RAM and could support a couple of dozen simultaneous users. Think about the kind of computer you were using in 1995, and compare that with the hardware on your desk in 2003.
5. Did I mention the bit about traffic to a single machine somehow bringing down an entire school's network?

Kind of like I don't care about the historical inaccuracies that have some people wailing that the movie is a sham, I'm not really all that bothered about the number; it just seems like somebody's sense of scale was a bit off when it hit the page and, considering the amount of techno-talk they threw at the screen early on, it seemed like an odd detail to get wrong. (And if they didn't get it wrong, well, shame on me.)

Actually, you're just proving yourself wrong. Let me show you...

I'm starting at your number 2. - Harvard's undergrad pop is under 10k. Ummmm, the whole point of this movie (and facebook itself) is that you're using friends of friends. Guaranteed that not all 22k of those people were Harvard students, but also included friends of students who may have used their social network??? I mean come on.

Next, your number 5. He started the whole spiral via his computer. And yeah, that was the source. The server was the school's, so what's the big deal about one machine bringing down the network? The kid was working on some code to begin with, but I doubt he had to do much after the 'compare faces' thing took off.

Number 4. What does hardware specs have to do with anything? Even now days there are people using Windows 98. The Harvard network in 03 was obviously not that great.

Anyway, I'm not saying your wrong, just saying that your opinion seems inconsistent to me. Somebody else could come along and prove a point just as much as you are except on the opposite side. But all in all, the movie doesn't seem to perfectly match our technology, I will admit that too. It felt more like a 90's setting movie rather than 2003. But, that's probably my only complaint. I was too lost in the MUSIC (my god it was great) and the plot anyways, so I can't really hash out any complaints.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2010 08:04AM by ChaseNine.

morakanabad posted:

I have no hard numbers to back any of this up, and we're only talking about a movie script, but...

1. 22,000 hits != 22,000 people (unless each person only requests data once)
2. Harvard's undergrad population is well under 10,000.
3. 22,000 hits in two hours equals 11,000 per hour... equals 183 and change per minute... equals a hair over three per second. Hit up any web server that tells you how long it took to query its database and generate a page, and the number is likely to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.05 to 0.1 seconds.
4. A high-end web server circa 1995 had about 16 megs of RAM and could support a couple of dozen simultaneous users. Think about the kind of computer you were using in 1995, and compare that with the hardware on your desk in 2003.
5. Did I mention the bit about traffic to a single machine somehow bringing down an entire school's network?

Kind of like I don't care about the historical inaccuracies that have some people wailing that the movie is a sham, I'm not really all that bothered about the number; it just seems like somebody's sense of scale was a bit off when it hit the page and, considering the amount of techno-talk they threw at the screen early on, it seemed like an odd detail to get wrong. (And if they didn't get it wrong, well, shame on me.)

It got 450 visits, and 22,000 photo views.
[www.slashfilm.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2010 12:40PM by mka12992.