The Social Network - Movie Forums

Movie Forums (http://www.movieforums.com/community/index.php)

- Movie Reviews (http://www.movieforums.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

- - The Social Network (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=23870)

Re: The Social Network

The text at the end is non-specific. It literally just says they "signed a non-disclosure agreement."

Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect (Post 681367)

The Social Network

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...g?t=1286080231

The Social Network tells the story of the rise of the phenomenon that is Facebook.

Loved your review of this film...I actually started to watch this move three different times and turned it off before getting totally hooked on it the 4th time. Eisenberg is chilling, as is Aaron Sorkin's screenplay. I think I rated it the same that you did.

Re: The Social Network

So I read that Zuckerberg did not want a movie about him being made, but at the same time if that's true, he didn't really do a lot to stop it, such as buy them out or anything. Plus I thought that if you make a movie based on a true story, you have to have the person's permission if he is still alive, or that person could be legally eligible to sue, which he also didn't try to do, if he didn't approve.

Re: The Social Network

I've never heard the thing about needing someone's permission while they're alive. That can't be true.

Zuckerberg’s pleas for privacy could have been disingenuous and may he have considered that a film based on his rise to power could prove glamorous?

:0

Re: The Social Network

Also, you can't necessarily "buy someone out" if they already have millions of your dollars and were wealthy to begin with, and want their story out.

Even trying to do that arguably looks worse than letting the film be released, anyway.

Re: The Social Network

Oh okay. Well basically when I was in film school, we were taught the reason why independent films usually do not want to make movies based on true stories, is cause they can never afford to buy the life rights of those people. So I thought you had to buy life rights. For example, when James Franco wanted to make a movie about Tommy Wiseau, he said in an interview that he had to buy Tommy's life rights.

But if you do not have to buy life rights, and you can make a movie about anyone you want, while they are still alive, then why do filmmakers like Franco, even bother to buy life rights?

Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 1986594)

There are a few articles online.

"Generally, when making docudramas about famous personalities, the legal issues to watch out for include Rights of Privacy, the tort of False Light, Rights of Publicity and the tort of Defamation."

and

"So what category of film applies to The Social Network? The answer is that it is a type of biopic commonly referred to as a “docudrama”. Docudramas have been judicially recognized in a number of U.S. court cases, including the case of Seale v. Gramercy Pictures 964 F.Supp. 918 (1997), which dealt with the motion picture entitled Panther. In Seale the court stated:

'…the film "Panther" is best categorized under the film genre of “docudrama.” He testified that the “key” to making a docudrama is to capture the “essence” of an historical event and not necessarily to recreate for the audience every historical detail of that event. …such major motion pictures as “Ghandi” and “JFK” are appropriately classified as docudramas.”

The court finds that the film “Panther” is a “docudrama” and not a “documentary” film. A docudrama is a “motion picture presenting a dramatic recreation or adaptation of actual events.” [...] It “is a dramatization of an historical event or lives of real people, using actors or actresses. Docudramas utilize simulated dialogue, composite characters, and a telescoping of events occurring over a period into a composite scene or scenes.'
Clearly, by this definition The Social Network is a docudrama."

source

Originally Posted by ironpony (Post 1986594)

But if you do not have to buy life rights, and you can make a movie about anyone you want, while they are still alive, then why do filmmakers like Franco, even bother to buy life rights?

Like the Facebook stuff, the answers are available with a quick Googling. Short version generally has to do with risk tolerance and making the process smoother, as far as I can tell. If you buy the life rights you're insulating yourself from legal troubles. Some people don't want to deal with a suit even if it's one they'd probably win.

Really, just think about all the movies based on public figures, though. Many of them are not flattering. There's no way George W. Bush sold his life rights to Oliver Stone, or Dick Cheney to Adam McKay, so from those and lots of other high-profile examples we can already surmise that it can't be a legal requirement.

Re: The Social Network

Yeah that's true, makes sense!

Re: The Social Network

Zuckerberg wanting privacy is hilarious.

I watched it again recently.

A) Armie Hammer gives the best performance(s) in the entire film.

B) Reznor and Ross’ track “Hand Covers Bruise” is a much better summation of the film’s themes (evoking a mix of childlike innocence and fervor) than the film itself.

C) oh my god, the scene where the Winklevosses loose a race in England is atrociously written.

Maybe this should have gone in the controversial film opinions thread.

Re: The Social Network

It might be my favorite film ever.