David Fincher to Direct The Social Network

[Tacit Ronin]

i will say this Andrew Garfield blew me away i felt he gave the best performance

Eisenberg gave the best performance by far.

 

[Project862006]

should i have said in my opinion when i posted since that's what people do on forums?

anyways maybe because i liked Eduardo the most

 

[Bunker]

Eisenberg gave one of the most layered performances I've ever seen. He played Zuckerberg as a callous, smug individual that you pitied and sympathized with at the same time. Incredibly hard to pull off.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

 

[flickchick85]

Why does it have to be a competition for who was better? They were both phenomenal, imo.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

I agree with you, Chick. But god, it's so, so hard to choose who was better.

To me, they bounced off each other so damn brilliantly that they movie wouldn't have worked without Garfield or Eisenberg.

 

[Project862006]

1 thing i will say is hammer was really good but after it hit me he played both twins this man deserves alot of credit

 

[MadVillainy]

IMO
1. Eisenberg
2. JT
3. Hammer
4. Garfield

All gave beyond fantastic performances

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Whoa whoa whooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

JT > Garfield?! COME ON!

 

[Kane52630]

Watching The Room ten times > Aesop Rocks posting about The Social Network

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

 

[Project862006]

Whoa whoa whooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

JT > Garfield?! COME ON!

i agree justin as Parker was very good but i felt AG as Eduardo was more layered and had a better performance

especially the scene where he goes after mark after he realized he had been F**ked

 

[Aesop Rocks]

What really, really sold me for LIFE on Andrew Garfield's acting talent (and him being the new Spider-Man) was the "you better Lawyer up, *******, because I'm not coming back for 20%, I'm coming back for everything".

It's kind of scary how great Garfield is going to be as Parker. Especially with Webb directing him.

 

[MadVillainy]

Yeah I think JT did better than Garfield. The last 5 mins of his performance>>>>>>>Eduardo going after Mark

But that being said it's picking the worst of two goods

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Watching The Room ten times > Aesop Rocks posting about The Social Network

Watching The Room in 3D > Kane watching The Room ten times > Aesop Rocks posting about The Social Network.

 

[redhawk23]

so do you think all of this critic love will translate into a best picture win?

 

[Kane52630]

Watching The Room in 3D > Kane watching The Room ten times > Aesop Rocks posting about The Social Network.

 

[hugekent]

1. Garfield
2. Mara
3. Eisenberg
4. The Harvard Dean
5. Hammer
6. Saverin's lawyer
7. Timberlake

I thought JT was pretty damn good but there was some acting in this film that was beyond what he is capable of.

 

[Crockett]

Collider posted a great interview with Fincher where he talks about the shooting experience, why he does a lot of takes, editing process, agreement/disagreement with studios and future projects, it's really interesting and the interview is also available in audio.
http://collider.com/david-fincher-interview-social-network-girl-with-dragon-tattoo/67432/#more-67432

 

[carrrnuttt]

Loved this movie, but mainly as a work of fiction.

Hated how it was setup to make Mark as unlikeable as possible. There's a reason. A bad one. Also, Eduardo NEEDED to get cut off. Oh and yeah, the real Eduardo was the one that pitched the book idea that eventually made this movie. Think he was biased?

You guys should read this for some perspective: http://www.readaloo.com/mark-zuckerberg-describes-the-dirty-tricks-th

 

[terry78]

I agree to an extent about JT, only because he had to come up from other beginnings regarding his level of acting prowess than Eisenberg and Garfield. He's a ****ing singer who hasn't been acting his whole life who managed to hold his own with a cast of excellence.

 

[Tequilla]

I've re-watched Adventureland and Zombieland and its funny that Eisenberg in those movies is also Zuckerberg....maybe it was his inspiration. He's lucky he got the role , when he had the experience already....

The same tone , the same expressions , the same body-movement , the way he speaks , the pauses , the non-existent laughs...watching those back to back it almost feels like a trilogy (Zuckerberg in a 80's park , Zuckerberg with zombies , Zuckerberg creating facebook). Absolutely surreal that this guy is winning acting awards.

On the other hand , Andrew Garfield is going to be a great actor. Loved his work in Red Riding

This year the leading role which i enjoyed the most was Ray Winstone's work in 44 inch chest (it was released here in 2010). Leo's work in Shutter Island is alwo wonderful but he would never get recognition from that kind of movie (even if its from Scorsese)...heck , i think people just dont take serious Leo's acting. When a movie like Revolutionary Roads gets completely forgotten in acting awards , maybe i really have different tastes. Kate and Leo's work in that movie is breathtaking...even i become exausted after seeing it. Almost like a duel in terms of acting. So good...(the movie could have been better)

 

[MadVillainy]

Still kind of disappointed this doesnt have digital copy, but I know Im getting it first day and watching it ASAP. Going for my 6th viewing

OT: Anyone know a good blu ray ripper?

Loved this movie, but mainly as a work of fiction.

Hated how it was setup to make Mark as unlikeable as possible. There's a reason. A bad one. Also, Eduardo NEEDED to get cut off. Oh and yeah, the real Eduardo was the one that pitched the book idea that eventually made this movie. Think he was biased?

You guys should read this for some perspective: http://www.readaloo.com/mark-zuckerberg-describes-the-dirty-tricks-th

GOod find. I think most know that TSN is largely fictional. It's a really brilliant aspect of the film that I didnt really think of. Of course Mark looks bad, because Eduardo and the Winklevi are trying to win their lawsuits. Honestly they could (but shouldnt) make another whole film about Mark's side of the story

When I look back on the film, it really isnt from Mark's perspective if you get what I mean. Largely because the story is being told in retrospect during a lawsuit where Mark is supposed to be the bad guy.
Most if not all of the scenes where Mark is with certain people (The Winklevi, Eduardo, Becca, etc.) he is portrayed like a *****ebag. But with scenes by himself and Dustin (whose role shouldve been alot bigger) or Rashida's Jones character he is much more sympathetic because those scenes are "the truth" if that makes any sense. He looks better because in those scenes arent being told from an enemies POV. Never thought about it, but now it makes me love the film ever more

And Im not gonna lie if I had a friend who turned off the funding for a huge project like facebook, I'd probably cut them out to. That was kind of a b**ch move by Eduardo.

 

[carrrnuttt]

When I look back on the film, it really isnt from Mark's perspective if you get what I mean.

Well, if you think about it, too many moments involved Eduardo, the "source" for the book/movie. We see him get some in a stall, while we have to assume that the "main character" Mark is also doing the same in the other stall. We get to see Eduardo get harassed by his crazy girlfriend in NY (so we can assume that she's the reason he basically ignored the company), while in California, everything Mark "does" is assumed; as in, "he parties and gets girls hammered." "Mark runs into Sean." This was very much Eduardo's movie.

It's a great movie, I just find it quite unfair to Mark, in that a majority of moviegoing people will never get to know Mark's side of it.

Oh, and if you think about it, if Mark was really out to screw people, why is Dustin Moskovitz still a huge part of FB? Essentially, the quote in the link I gave from Mark is very true: Eduardo screwed himself.

 

[carrrnuttt]

BTW, thought this sort of belonged here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/winklevoss-facebook-lawsuit-2010-12

The Winklevoss twins' irrational crusade against Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook is not over.

The twins plan to double down on their fight in 2011, willing to risk throwing away the $65 million settlement they received in 2004 (which is now worth $100+ million).

The settlement was $20 million in cash, and $45 million in stock. The twins say Facebook deceived them about the value of the stock, thus giving them too few shares. They want to go to court to get the proper valuation on the stock.

To do so, they have to scrap the original settlement, and take a chance at getting a better payout.

Why are they still fighting this fight? Over the ridiculous idea of "principle."

"The principle is that they didn’t fight fair," Tyler Winklevoss tells the New York Times. He adds, "The principle is that Mark stole the idea."

That's B.S.

It's also hypocritical.

The Winklevosses voluntarily signed the settlement agreement, and Facebook's success has made them centi-millionaires. Now they want more. So they want to revoke the settlement agreement they voluntarily signed -- and, in so doing, go back on their word.

So the Winklevosses only fall back on "principle" when it suits them.

The truth of the matter is this is all about money. And thanks to Facebook's success, the Winklevosses have already gotten vastly more than they deserve.

The Winklevii say the $40 million in stock they received should be worth $500 million today, but Facebook gave them a bogus valuation in the 2004 settlement.

So instead, it's closer in value to $120 million.

Remarkably, the Winklevosses still appear to think that everything that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg have achieved is because of them. This is beyond delusional. It's megalo-maniacal.

These are Harvard graduates and Olympic athletes we're talking about. And they're wasting their lives trying to claim credit for something they had next to nothing to do with.

As the 9,000 Groupon clones, and hundreds of Facebook clones have demonstrated, ideas are a dime-a-dozen. It's execution that counts. Mark Zuckerberg executed. The Winklevosses didn't. And they've already been paid $120 milion for their failure, which is more than the vast majority of entrepreneurs will ever get.

Does anyone on this planet think the Winklevosses could have gotten a $120 million exit for their idea, ConnectU, if they had run it instead of Mark Zuckerberg?

The answer to that question, apparently, is "yes." There are two people that think that: Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss.

They tell the Times Zuckerberg has done little more than "not screwing up" Facebook. They "absolutely" think they could have made ConnectU into Facebook with hundreds of millions of users.

What an arrogant, silly, statement.

As Mark Zuckerberg's character in The Social Network says to Winklevoss characters, "If you guys were the inventors of Facebook you'd have invented Facebook."

If the Winklevosses had had any of Mark Zuckerberg's talent or vision, they could have built ConnectU into a beast that killed Facebook. After all, Facebook only had a slight head start.

But, they didn't.

Move on boys. This is beyond pathetic.

I have a feeling watching their side being dramatized on-screen helped spur the bastards: "O. M. G. we ARE victims!"