10 ms·
Scott Adams: The Social Network, "The best movie I've ever seen"
- KoZeN 16y agoWow. I naturally expected the title of that blog to be tongue-in-cheek. I was actively avoiding paying to see that movie as I feared it would be another Hollywood over-dramatisation of an actual event but based on the emphasis Scott placed on the quality behind this movie, I may just change my mind!
- gecko 16y agoI really liked it. It's certainly not 100% accurate, and I don't think it's trying to be. It glosses over some major aspects of Facebook's history (like Zuckerberg's friendship with Graham, the heavy focus on Wirehog, the importance of Dustin Moskowitz, and so on), it compresses a lot of events into a shorter timespan than they occurred in real life (Facemash, renaming from Thefacebook to Facebook, the excising of Saverin from the company, the acquisition of VC, the move to real offices), and it fabricates a bit wholesale (it plays up one of Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriends, making it seem as if she was his only one; portrays Zuckerberg as having heavy asperger syndrome; implies that all of Facebook's funds came from Saverin; pretends Facebook was started because Zuckerberg wanted into Harvard's Final Clubs, etc.). That's true. But it's not about vilifying Facebook; the dramatic license was taken to be dramatic, not to make some point about Zuckerberg or Facebook. Zuckerberg is portrayed as a total genius; his role as CEO is respected; he is not portrayed as having ripped off the idea for Facebook from the Winklevoss twins, and while he does ultimately screw over Saverin, the movie goes to pains to make it clear that it had to happen for the success of the company. At the risk of sounding a bit truthy, I think that the movie did a superb job capturing the feel of a startup in Facebook's situation, even if some of the facts are slightly off. While I think this review is slightly hyperbolic, I don't think it's crazy, either. The movie was insanely well-done from start to finish, and I don't honestly think that the creative license is much worse than, say, Apollo 13. I think if you were expecting to see geeks get vilified, you'll be very pleasantly surprised.
- narrator 16y agoCome on, it's a movie where the hero uses Emacs! Unless you are vi bigot, you're going to love it.
- philwelch 16y agoI am a vi bigot and I loved it.
- acangiano 16y agoFrom the comments: "He's just a guy who knows a bit of PHP and wanted to get rich, along with the creators of 1000 other social networking sites, and just got lucky that his went viral." It's amazing how easy it is to dismiss other people's accomplishments. Notice how "Knew a little bit of PHP and got lucky" is used to represent years of hard work, business and development wise. You must have never run a business if you think that Zuckerberg's success came easy and was due to sheer luck.
- stanleydrew 16y agoAgree, but using the word "genius" is still a bit extreme, which is what I think incited that reaction.
- whereareyou 16y agoMark Zuckerberg is a genius.
- tjogin 16y agoSure. But not because of his supposed larger-than-life PHP skillz.
- Tichy 16y agoSo genius is defined by success?
- JanezStupar 16y agoWell - usually this is the case. You see - society indeed tends to call successful people geniuses. The others get to be called "autistic savants". /sarcasm Some say that Edison was not a genius, and that Ford was not a genius, etc... Myself - I'm chock full sick of "geniuses" who would of made it if they would of made it. Thus I'd be way more inclined to root for the Zuck than for the mass of people that claim that he fracked them over. Rooting for the underdog might be "noble". But lets face it - most of the underdogs don't deserve to win.
- ErrantX 16y agoReading this I think that, actually, he likes this film not because it is a brilliant topic or for the fact it is about Facebook - but because it is extremely well written and realistic. I agree entirely with his gripe that such a thing is unusual for "big" modern films. This actually might make me go and see it now :)
- seldo 16y agoThe NY Times noted that audience reaction to The Social Network has been split very firmly by age: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/media/04carr.html http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/media/04carr.html Basically, older folk think the thing is a hatchet job on Mark Zuckerberg, and that he comes across as a tragic figure. Younger folk seem to think of Zuck as a hero, who pulled off world-changing accomplishments despite rich idiots trying to bring him down. I think the difference is not actually "old" and "young", but "technical" and "nontechnical". People who like technology and understand it (this does not include Aaron Sorkin) are awed by Zuck's accomplishments, while those who do not understand how hard it was instead focus on his personal failures. Adams, who is in his 50s but firmly understands technology, reinforces this view.
- ghshephard 16y agoAbsolutely - I came out of the movie thinking it was one big puff-piece to Zuck and Parker's accomplishments, and wondered what the rationale was for slamming Eduardo so badly. My actual thinking was "No way was Eduardo that lame in reality". I was amazed to find out that some viewers came out of the movie believing that Zuck had been portrayed in a negative light - I was almost wondering if we had seen the same movie. I think it's not actually so much technical vs non-technical, as it is awareness of what it takes to build a company from scratch. I've been in the valley for 14 years, and I can share _dozens_ of stories where world-class engineering teams put their sweat, blood, and tears in 80 Hour work weeks for 5 solid years and came out with absolutely nothing (monetarily) to show for their effort beyond a salary. Watching Sean and Mark pivot on _precisely_ the correct elements, while Eduardo fumbled, or otherwise disengaged, just emphasized how important constant flawless tactical AND strategic execution are.
- okaramian 16y agoZuckerberg's family wasn't exactly poor, and he went to Harvard. Framing this as like a "rich vs. poor" movie is pretty inaccurate. I think that there is a lot of moral ambiguity in the movie, which is why I dug it.
- slantyyz 16y agoNot sure that I buy into the "technical" and "nontechnical" argument. I'm middle aged and technical and while I -respect- Zuck's accomplishments, I can definitely say there's no hero worship involved. The focus on his personal failures is to be expected, and it has little to do with age or technical awareness. Zuck is at the top of his field, so everyone loves a bit of schadenfreude when it presents itself. I remember that people used to get their hate on for Marc Andreesen once upon a time.
- jsiarto 16y agoThe one thing I really appreciated about the movie was the accuracy of the computer monitor shots and dialogue about servers/hacking. While pretty basic Apache config stuff, It's nice to see a respect for the technology.
- gecko 16y agoIndeed. There was something wonderful about seeing not just real desktop shots, but desktop shots with the correct contemporary hardware and software. Mozilla-the-app, Emacs 19, thick crappy Dells. Just a nice break from Hollywood effects.
- AdamTReineke 16y agoMy brother noticed that they had a Mountain Dew can accurate to the time period.
- rwhitman 16y agoOne thing I really liked was that the purchase price for the domain on Network Solutions was historically accurate - back then they were still charging $34 for a .com domain..
- bambax 16y ago> Normally the writer's craft is so obvious that it buries the art. When the art buries the craft, you have something special. This kind of formulation is upsetting because art and craft are the same thing (in many languages they're the same word, too). If you can't see the "art" "behind" the craft, then the craft is poor. The whole purpose of craft is to hide itself. Now, the craft is usually so poor that we made a whole other concept for "good craft", and that is "art". It wouldn't be a problem if "art" was just a shorthand for "good craft", but then it took a life of its own, and became associated with miracles, "gift of God". - - - That said, to me, "the best movie I've ever seen" is A Few Good Men, by the same Sorkin. I can't wait to see this one!
- dtf 16y agoI disagree. Craft is skill. Art is expression.
- joshuacc 16y agoThat is what the word art came to mean post-Romanticism. Pre-Romanticism, the distinction was made between art (craft/skill) and genius (inspiration). See Critical Theory Since Plato if you're interested in reading how past thinkers approached artistic creation.
- bambax 16y agoYou can't express yourself if your skills are poor. You're right that someone who has nothing to say will create artifacts of low value; but I would argue that expression is a function of one's mastery of the craft. There is a recurring theme in PG's essays about how computer languages affect how you think and therefore, what you can say using them. This is also a common theme in the "suits vs. geeks" debate; if you can't code, how can you imagine what code can do? In general the (philosophical) jury's still out on whether language predates thinking or the other way around; but it's a fact that all great "artists" produce their best work after many many years of practicing and perfecting their craft.
- BrandonM 16y ago
- agentultra 16y agoI just don't like the contrived marketing of the film. People should be able to draw their own conclusions from the characters. Instead the conclusions are shoved down their throats "punk, genius, billionaire." Honestly, I didn't find anything "punk" about the film nor do I think he was a genius. The lottery is proof that millions of dollars doesn't make you smarter.
- pchristensen 16y agoI agree. (all these observations are about movie Zuck, not real Zuck) He's not a punk, me's more like someone who has been bullied, pushed around, and ignored his whole life and he's not going to take it anymore. He might be a genius, but that's not what's special about him. It's his determination to succeed at any cost. Lots of 19 year olds are geniuses, but most know when to quit. Sure he's a billionaire, but there was only one line in the movie where that was even relevant (An extremely juicy line, I might add). He was after power, success, and influence much more than he was about money. I couldn't decide if the movie portrayed him as a sympathetic villain or a tragic hero. Probably more like a real life complicated person going through an amazing journey.
- AndrewMoffat 16y agoI couldn't decide if the movie portrayed him as a sympathetic villain or a tragic hero. Probably more like a real life complicated person going through an amazing journey. I liked that too. A lot of the dynamics and relationships weren't very black and white at all, which made it that much more engaging and realistic.
- masterponomo 16y agoFor me, it's a close second to "Swordfish" for movie depictions of computer programming (at least the way I do it at home).
- AndrewMoffat 16y agoI don't really see how that could be. Zuck was using emacs, wget, and PHP is plausible ways to accomplish things that a tech-savvy viewer would see as realistic. In Swordfish, Jobson was visually programming a "hydra" matrix-textured rubiks cube and dropping "logic bombs" into the DoD web login forms.
- masterponomo 16y agoI did say "a close second".
- artmageddon 16y agoI do have to say that the hacking scene in "Swordfish" was cooler, though again, highly unrealistic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHOgkgnZAdc&ob=av3n http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHOgkgnZAdc&ob=av3n
- patrickk 16y agoIn CSI, they use Visual Basic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkDD03yeLnU EDIT: Here's the final product (watch this second): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GD4ehJ25o&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9GD4ehJ25o&NR=1
- quux 16y agoWhile getting a blowjob, IIRC. I mean, come on... that's only happened to me a handful of times.
- masterponomo 16y ago
- Keyframe 16y agoIt's just a movie trying to cash-in on a facebook phenomenon. Guy made a website that was popular among a certain clique and spread out like a wildfire. There's nothing genius about his "hacking" abilities (I'm pretty allergic to what is stuffed into that term on this site)... he made LOTS of money, geek with money - tension, drama. the end. I don't get it what is there more to it, except for the fact that most of the people here would like to be that guy, because they are trying to enter the tangential business space he is in.
- nirai 16y agoReceived 100% from Rotten Tomatoes top critics: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-network/?critic=creamcrop#contentReviews http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-network/?critic=c... Never seen that happen before.
- quux 16y agoToy Story 3 did that too.
- pauldino 16y agoAll the Toy Story films have 100% Top Critics ratings, in fact.
- julian37 16y agoPlenty of films with that rating. Just a few off the top of my head: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/citizen_kane/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/citizen_kane/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godfather/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/godfather/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chinatown/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/chinatown/ (Note: I haven't seen The Social Network and I don't mean to imply that it is comparable to the iconic movies I have listed above. That said, the more reviews I see trickling in, the more it seems like it.)
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- davidw 16y agoI guess he's never seen "Army of Darkness".
- spitfire 16y agoTHIS is my boomstick!
- mikeknoop 16y agoOur of sheer curiosity, how would you compare "The Social Network" with "Pirates of Silicon Valley"?
- quux 16y agoHmm Social network has superior directing and writing IMO. But they are similar in many respects. PoSV simply tells the story in a pretty straightforward way, while TSN is structured more as a search for the true story. It's structured as a bunch of flashbacks from the depositions of Mark, Eduardo, and the Winklevoss twins. Each party tells their version of things, and as a character says at one point, 15% of typical testimony is lies, the remaining 85% is exaggerated. The movie doesn't try to take sides, and leaves it up to the viewer to decide who was right and wrong (if anyone.)
- philwelch 16y agoNearly all of the technical merits (writing, acting, production values) are better with The Social Network, though the leads in Pirates do well. Pirates tells a much broader story, and Steve Jobs and Bill Gates make more interesting characters. (Woz and Paul Allen are played straightforwardly, and Ballmer is recognizably Ballmer.) It's quite notable that Pirates tells a broader and more interesting story than The Social Network despite The Social Network being far more fictionalized. If you're looking for parallels to contemporary startups, The Social Network is a bit more on point--Pirates goes farther back into the founders' backgrounds and forward into the lives of Apple and Microsoft as established companies. But both are still great.
- tel 16y agoI haven't seen The Social Network. I'm fully willing to believe that it is a fantastic movie, and, just based on collateral evidence, I'd even put some money down on Sorkin doing well in the Academy Awards. I will probably see it very soon. Nevertheless, I still think that this post is mostly evidence that Scott Adams hasn't watched a lot of classic movies that have stood the test of time. To state that The Social Network stands with the greatest movies of all time (as Adams' statement could have meant if he'd seen a lot of them) is one thing, but I take it as pretty unlikely that it surpasses the whole field. Unless, of course, the "whole field" he's implying it compares to is pretty small. So, cool, I'm glad he liked it. I'm also not sure what knowing his opinion earned me.
- jonasvp 16y agoLawrence Lessig has an interesting take on the movie: http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-the-social-network http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zucke... He basically says that it's old media (Sorkin and Hollywood) casting new media (Zuckerberg) in a bad light, compared to the good guys - the honorable and respectable lawyers (of all people). The real point of Facebook's success according to Lessig: "Instead, what’s important here is that Zuckerberg’s genius could be embraced by half-a-billion people within six years of its first being launched, without (and here is the critical bit) asking permission of anyone. The real story is not the invention. It is the platform that makes the invention sing."
- pdx 16y agoIMO, Facebook did well for two reasons, brand recognition and phased roll-out. After it started taking off at Harvard, you had the Harvard brand, which is a pretty big deal, to encourage uptake at other colleges. By going college by college, critical mass was easier to achieve, as it didn't need a lot of people, it just needed a lot of people at your particular college, to encourage the non-early-adopters to join in. By the time it was actually competing with MySpace, etc, for non college users, it already had a sizable user group in the key demographic, and as I recall, the "started at harvard" branding was still to be heard.
- rwhitman 16y agoA friend the other day called it "The Godfather of our generation". I don't really get how they got that out of it. I came out of the theater kind of depressed. And worrying a lot about lawyers. I've always wondered what it feels like to be someone who works in a hospital and then comes home to watch a hospital drama on TV. Now I know. Its kind of weird.
- mattmaroon 16y agoYou almost get the impression that the author has just never seen a good movie before. Almost everything he said could be applied to any top film maker. Coens, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, lots of others. If all you've seen are summer blockbusters I can see how you might be wowed by good writing and lack of special effects. Sorkin's good for sure, sometimes really good, but he too has his weaknesses. For instance the fact that every character has the diction of a Harvard English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw.
- hugh3 16y agohe too has his weaknesses. For instance the fact that every character has the diction of a Harvard English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw. Is that really a weakness? Strict realism in dialogue generally makes for pretty poor drama. Shakespeare's characters talk like nobody has ever talked, but his plays would not be improved by sticking in a bunch of "umm"s and "ahh"s and repetition and "y'know" and repetition and, uhh, stuff like that, y'know?
- mattmaroon 16y agoYes and no I suppose. When it's unrelenting, ubiquitous (politicians and waiters) and in everything he ever composes, I'd consider it a weakness. Of course you don't expect anyone to talk exactly as people do, with umms and ahs and all that. But Steinbeck and Hemingway (and in film, most of the people I mentioned in my original post) prove that you can write great drama and dialogue with a good degree of realism. Also many people did speak similar to Shakespeare's characters, though of course with less rhyming since they weren't poets and Shakespeare was. There's a good explanation of that here "http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_they_did_in_Shakespeare%27s_plays http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_th...
- pohl 16y agoJust like Claude Monet and those big, unrealistic blobs of paint. Such a weakness.
- runcible_spork 16y agoMovie or no, "They trust me. Dumb fucks." is the core of Facebook.
- runcible_spork 16y agoPrediction: In six months, if this movie is remembered at all, we'll all realize that it's actually a pretty stupid movie.
- lovskogen 16y agoI think this movie was issued by Facebooks PR department, to further embark the notion that Facebook is 'the only social network'.