The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

David Fincher's The Social Network


#1

Really excited about this. A lot of people I talk to seem to be dismissing it as a “Facebook movie,” but considering the screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin, it’s directed by David Fincher and none of the co-founders of Facebook were involved, I’d say it’s going to be a whole lot more than a "Facebook movie."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUuPPC9YaVo




#2

New young actor in vogue + overfamed director = not interested


#3

Andrew Garfield and Jesse Eisenberg = awesome movies ! These two young actors are reallt good, you shouldn’t underestimate them. And fincher made some awesome movies, he’s def not a bad director, so you can always expect something good or at least give him a chance. And i’m not a facebook girl, I don’t even have a page, so I’m all objective.


#4

I think the flak it seems to be copping from the film community is unwarranted. I’ve read Sorkin’s screenplay and it’s nothing short of brilliant. Whether you like Fincher or not, not even Brett Ratner could screw up that screenplay.



Plus, it’s not even really about Facebook. It’s barely even about Mark Zuckerberg. Those are just tools, starting points for exploring the wider phenomenons of social networking, dot com ventures and internet culture.


#5

Having a fb page or not isn’t really relevant to judging that movie imo :smiley:



Yeah I know that actor from Adventureland and I liked him a lot, I still do and I consider him to be the only good thing about that FB movie btw (judging from the trailer), but he’ll quickly become overhyped like Gordon Levitt and Michael Cera which makes them unbearable while it’s not even their fault.

I mean one of my “fb friend” (meaning she’s not really my friend irl, I know her and talk to her but most of the conversations we have a rather dull and uninteresting) just posted a comment about inception being awesome and talked about Joseph Gordon Levitt like she knew him for a long long time and had seen all of his movies, while you can easily tell she’s only seen 500 days of Summer and Inception. That was ridiculous. And she also has to post everything in english while I bet 99% of her fb friends are french, which makes it ridiculous and makes me want to bleed tears of pain.

I’m just a bit nostalgic about the days when I knew them and those stupid fucks didn’t.





I’ve never complained about the fact it was about FB btw.


#6

Well, I think Eisenberg has the range and ability to pull it off (judging mostly from The Squid and the Whale), the script is amazing and Fincher is a director talented enough, rich enough and respected enough that he doesn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to do. And he’s got a great track-record when you think about it. So I’m expecting a great film and I honestly can’t imagine any of those key creatives going wrong with the material they’ve got.


#7

Mixed feelings. I don’t buy into the facebook/myspace and/or twitter bullshit. Plus I think Fincher is one of the single most overrated directors of all time. And I really have nothing but contempt for directors who decide to shoot movies on video.


#8

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]Mixed feelings. I don’t buy into the facebook/myspace and/or twitter bullshit. Plus I think Fincher is one of the single most overrated directors of all time. And I really have nothing but contempt for directors who decide to shoot movies on video.[/quote]

I can’t say I understand that. I don’t think it’s as simple as saying video is inferior to celluloid. It’s all about aesthetic. Mann, for example, found the perfect partner in digital. Even before he made the switch, his films had a realism that suited digital. Sadie Benning shot her best films at 16 on pixelvision and then there’s Korine’s Julien Donkey Boy. One isn’t better than the other, it’s which one suits your vision and/or the story you are telling.



Plus, as I said before in this thread, I never bought into the facebook/twitter/myspace hype. I have a Facebook account which I initially made to keep track of my group for my graduate film, but I never got a twitter or myspace account. This film is not really about that, though, it’s not like two hours of people interacting on Facebook or anything.



I’m not really trying to convince anyone of anything, maybe I’m sounding like a viral, but just saying that the film isn’t really what people are expecting. If it was, I wouldn’t be interested either. The script is more of a criticism of social networking and reveals Mark Zuckerberg to be a flawed, emotionally needy and socially awkward individual.


#9

Plus the production decided not to promote the movie on Facebook or Myspace, didn’t they ? So that the audience wouldn’t take it for another geek movie or wouldn’t think it’s been paid by Facebook itself to promote the site.


#10

Read some about the movie beyond the trailer and I gotta say that my interest is slightly peaked. I still maintain my strict feelings on film vs. video though.



The aesthetic arguement is interesting but I don’t buy it for a second. I mean look at Curious Case. Looked fine, but is there any aesthetic reason to shoot it digital? What a great story to shoot on film.



Outside of the conveniance (which isn’t a conversation I care to get into now) I don’t understand why you’d shoot on video.


#11

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]Read some about the movie beyond the trailer and I gotta say that my interest is slightly peaked. I still maintain my strict feelings on film vs. video though.



The aesthetic arguement is interesting but I don’t buy it for a second. I mean look at Curious Case. Looked fine, but is there any aesthetic reason to shoot it digital? What a great story to shoot on film.



Outside of the conveniance (which isn’t a conversation I care to get into now) I don’t understand why you’d shoot on video.[/quote]

Fincher is another creature. I agree. I am an advocate for digital because I believe wholeheartedly that it’s not a replacement for film like it’s shown to be. I think a lot of people are scared it’s going to kill celluloid. I think there will always be people who’d rather use celluloid.



But, I will say in Fincher’s defense that he strikes me as a person who likes the feel of working with digital. I don’t know that I’ve heard him talk on the subject, but beyond aesthetic, I imagine there are a lot of directors who enjoy working with digital. Rushes ready immediately, the picture at the time of shooting is closer to the final look, long tapes, etc. I think he’s just in love with the options.



Curious Case, I think is the kind of film that’s good for celluloid. Public Enemies, even though it’s period, was absolutely perfect for digital on the flipside of that because Mann wanted a level of reality that period films rarely achieve. When it comes to Social Network, I don’t think it will matter too much, the steely look of digital might even suit the film.


#12

I totally agree! Public Enemies was great on video! It’s a totally different format. But it will replace film. They either don’t understand or don’t care. As soon as it looks as good as film, we’re fucked and film is replaced.



Like 3D. One person uses it well, the movie makes 2 billion dollars, and suddenly everything else is 3D. never mind that it’s a good movie. It’s obviously the 3D that made it great.



Suggestion, as long as I’m ranting here. Instead of focusing the money on 3D, digital video, and visual effects, we produce some decent (I think that’s how you spell it) scripts. Would you imagine that, people going to see a movie because it’s actually good…



Does it make you an asshole to want that?


#13

Man, don’t get me started on 3D. I hate 3D so fucking much. I hate that it doesn’t fit into the confined space of the film. It breaks the fourth wall in ways that irk me.



I’m a tolerant kind of guy. You wanna make a film with your cellphone? Right on. I’ll watch it if it’s any good. But 3D? I don’t think I’ll ever get used to it. And how it’s a selling point, I have no idea.


#14

[quote=“Angel”]Man, don’t get me started on 3D. I hate 3D so fucking much. I hate that it doesn’t fit into the confined space of the film. It breaks the fourth wall in ways that irk me.



I’m a tolerant kind of guy. You wanna make a film with your cellphone? Right on. I’ll watch it if it’s any good. But 3D? I don’t think I’ll ever get used to it. And how it’s a selling point, I have no idea.[/quote]

It’ll die, it has too.



As soon as the profits don’t vindicate the budgets they’ll cut that shit out.



it’s strange, it really feels like the studios are pushing the 3D more than the audience wanting it. I really hope Cameron is losing sleep over this…


#15

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
it’s strange, it really feels like the studios are pushing the 3D more than the audience wanting it. I really hope Cameron is losing sleep over this…[/quote]

I really hate that it’s become a part of the films. Like Nicolas Cage’s forthcoming “Drive Angry 3D” (or “Drive Angry in 3D” as I’ve seen in some places). The “3D” looks to be a part of the title and is present every time the film is mentioned, like it’s integral to the story and themes of the film or something.



If I ever see it, I’m going to go to some shitty theatre 40 minutes from me that doesn’t have 3D capabilities.


#16

That’s the only way for me to see my movies 2D. 45 minute trek to a nearby city. Not too bad if the movies were worth the trip.



Scott Pilgrim isn’t in 3D! SO EXCITED. Edgar’s awesome.


#17

I’ve kind of changed my opinion about this movie cause I just read the Original Soundtrack was made by, guess who? Nine Inch Nails. You read that right, Nine Inch Nails! Now I’m gonna have to see it.


#18

[quote=“RatQuiRit”]I’ve kind of changed my opinion about this movie cause I just read the Original Soundtrack was made by, guess who? Nine Inch Nails. You read that right, Nine Inch Nails! Now I’m gonna have to see it.[/quote]

I forgot his name but he also did some pretty cool stuff for Lost Highway. But I’m back to a fuck Social Network mood. Fincher’s an asshole. Guess why.


#19

Trent Reznor? He’s the Nine Inch Nails guy, right?

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
I forgot his name but he also did some pretty cool stuff for Lost Highway. But I’m back to a fuck Social Network mood. Fincher’s an asshole. Guess why.[/quote]

Is it cause he’s remaking Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? That’s the only thing I can think of. I thought it was weird when I heard.


#20

[quote=“Angel”]Trent Reznor? He’s the Nine Inch Nails guy, right?

[quote=“Ordell Rodriguez”]
I forgot his name but he also did some pretty cool stuff for Lost Highway. But I’m back to a fuck Social Network mood. Fincher’s an asshole. Guess why.[/quote]

Is it cause he’s remaking Girl With the Dragon Tattoo? That’s the only thing I can think of. I thought it was weird when I heard.[/quote]

Digital fucking cameras. Why it’s even a possibility breaks my brain.



I actually bought that book at the grocery store a few months ago just it looked kinda interesting. Is it any good?