What's so great about The Social Network (2010)?

I'm not sure I understand the question. What's compelling about what really happened, or what's compelling about the story the film tells?

I can't speak too much about it because it has been very long but it is pretty much what Yoda said. The appeal of The social network is partly due to the style of Fincher, which makes it visually dynamic and appealing, while also putting emphasis on character exposition through dialogues and a narrative that imbues energy to something as mundane and in theory lacking of narrative appeal as the creation of a website. It's Fincher's pace, cinematography and dynamism what do this trick. Additionally, it tells a story with background messages that are far more universal than one would probably expect and talks about the position of human relationships in the internet era, the concept of success in an insanely competitive society and ultimately the idea of power and influence as a way to create fake and transitory relationships while losing contact with your roots. It's humanism under several layers of misanthropy and many people rightfully compared this to Citizen Kane.

What's compelling about the real story, that it was worth making into a movie?

As for saying this movie has misanthropy, and it's rightly compared to Citizen Kane, where does that come? Mark Zuckerberg? I feel they just made that up for the movie, and they forced it on. The real life event, doesn't seem to have any misanthropic themes to it.

My review---

Whether anybody likes it or not ,facebook is the one of the biggest phenomenons of our times ,and anyone who uses the internet , literally lives under the shadow of facebook.

This the story of how Mark Zuckerberg founded facebook ,or co-founded it ,as he is forced by a lawsuit to admit.
Mark takes the help of friends in harvard to start facebook ,or thefacebook , as it was called at that time , who finance his endeavour . But as happens when huge amounts of money begin to roll in , friendships begin to sour over money, ,relationships begin to break ,and in the end everyone ends up in the courtroom .

Which provides the perfect setting for flashbacks , as much of the movie is in flashback mode ,as everyone remembers and recounts in the courtroom as to what part he had in the making of facebook ,the wheelings and dealings ,from their own perspective , of course. There is no action in the movie , so the director had to keep the dialogues crisp ,and fast-paced. This ,the director has succeeded in doing , and thus creating an engaging movie.

In this movie , Mark Zuckerberg emerges as a total nerd , somebody who might have made a lot of money , but would be difficult to live with , in real life. The movie starts with him breaking up with his girlfriend , who is fed up with his nerdish ways , and he retaliates by passing insulting comments on her in his blog .

However , the movie is made by inputs given by his former friend Eduardo Saverin , who eventually filed a lawsuit on him ,so he is bound to give a negative image of Mark Zuckerberg. Inspite of this , Jesse Eisenberg has given a good portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg ,and his performance is head and shoulder above the others.

Justin Timberlake also acts well as Sean Parker ,the hard-partying man who asks Mark to drop the 'the' from thefacebook ,and call it just facebook ,the name we are familiar with today.

The story of facebook is not yet over ,so there might be a part two movie when it has evolved ,or moved into a bigger league. If its as good as this one , I'll sure watch it.........

Oh okay. But why did they change Zuckerberg's motivations for making facebook? He didn't have an ex girlfriend who left him that he kept thinking about and the movie acts like one of the reasons he made facebook to see her approval. So why did the writers feel they needed to make this up about the character?

I love the guy (MZ). He took something that was nothing and created a giant. Made some enemies along the way, won in court (for the most part) and now lives like a king. Loved the movie, I own it. Great American success story.

Jon

__________________
The saddest thing in life is wasted talent.

How did he win in court though? He still had to pay what the court said he had to, so how is that winning?

The movie also portrays him as a real jerk though, and he kicked his friend out of the company pretty much all because he wasn't okay with his friend having the 30% which he agreed on. I didn't understand where all that greed was coming from but perhaps only the real Zuckerberg knows.

Read the above part of my review

The guy paid out peanuts in the bigger picture of things to come. A parking ticket to me and you. He tossed his buddy under the bus and made millions. I would kiss the ground he walks on!! A true genius.

Jon

Yeah but it's still technically losing. He didn't get what he wanted, which was not having to pay anything at all. To him it was losing. Plus he could have paid it without having to go to court, yet he still chose to hire expensive lawyers and go to court over it.

I also did not understand why the writers felt they needed to add the strange subplot about Edwardo having an angry girlfriend that set his apartment on fire.

I guess it's kind of a good movie, but I don't understand why they had to give Zuckerberg made up motivations.

Doesn't really matter where it comes from. It is an artistic choice, nowhere in the film it was brought as a necessary condition that it had to be strictly close to reality.

Yeah I guess. Perhaps it is a good movie. I wouldn't say it was compelling enough to be the masterpiece that it's often hailed as but I would give it a 6 o 7 out of 10.

1. The direction.
2. The fast-paced editing.
3. The soundtrack.
4. The not-obvious CGI.

While it's not one of Fincher's best these are some elements I loved from the film.

The guy is a billionaire, has a hot lady and never served a day in prison.

If thats losing.....I'll take it any day. I read a long article about Edwardo, he's also a billionaire. The American dream.

Jon

This seems like a loaded question, since it implies that people should only make movies if the "real story" is compelling, even if they plan to take creative liberties to make it moreso.

But to answer it anyway: the fact that one of the largest and most influential companies in history was potentially founded on stolen ideas and backstabbing, of course. I really don't understand the argument that this was some boring situation without the personalized creative liberties. There's tons of drama here inherent to the situation: money, power, legacy, and betrayal.

You keep citing the addition of material to the real story as a reason to dislike the story itself, and that doesn't wash. If you want to say you don't like people making things up about real people for narrative purposes, that's fine. If you want to say you weren't interested in the things they made up, that's also fine (though I'd totally disagree). But it doesn't make any sense to frame this as a critique of the story itself if, when elaborating on that critique, you pretty much only refer to the fact that material was added. "People shouldn't take creative liberties with real stories" is cultural criticism, not film criticism.

The Social Network is not a documentary on Mark Zuckerberg. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin were clearly more interested in telling a story of a nineteen-year-old Harvard sophomore who eventually creates a five-hundred-million-strong network of “friends,” but is so egotistical, work-obsessed, and withdrawn that he can’t stay close to anyone and he blows off his only real pal. The real focus of the film was how the idea of comparing appearances, that was initially perceived as perverted and debauched, went on to become a billion dollar industry. What does that say about our own private obsessions?

I loved The Social Network, as a matter of fact, I would call it a sure-fire favorite of mine. I never had much thought about how truthful the film was, but, instead, I loved the story it told. I think a lot of why I love it is how I related to the portrayal of the Zuckerberg character, particularly how I was looking back in high-school. I took myself too seriously and was never focused on cultivating real relationships, but instead, effectively alienated others because my own insecurities instilled this mind-set that I always had something to prove. It comes off as an artificial arrogance on some level, that the character so deeply cares about what others think, obsessively so. It's why he is so easily swayed by the Napster creator, because he reaffirms what Zuckerberg thinks, and the character needs that approval. I related to it because I always had trouble with emotional connection and felt I needed vindication. That, and I believe the film really captures the sense of purpose that can come with trying to run a website and I feel that passion really reminded me of my childhood, trying to get forums up-and-going, trying to market them to the right niche.

Best looking gif ever

__________________
Letterboxd

“Except for markf, you’re all a disgrace to cinema.”

Considering the posts have a white backround.