Nope just one version of events, and occasionally people yell “liar” at each other over a boardroom table.
Yeah I saw the Sorkin interview and was expecting, for example, multiple conflicting accounts of key events in the film. But I didn’t come out reminded of Roshomon at all.
However, it was an excellent film. Easily the best screenplay I’ve seen/heard this year, good direction, and the acting without exception was excellent. Did I read correctly that the Winklevoss twins were played by the same actor? You couldn’t tell during the movie.
I though Zuckerberg came out looking like a loser. I mean, not as bad as Parker, but definitely a guy who screwed some people over and not a very sympathetic character. Really socially clueless and self-absorbed.
I particularly liked the first and last scenes, but the whole movie was great.
I also liked it and given what I heard going, was surprised how even handed it seemed. Zuckerberg comes off being kind of a D-bag personally but a brilliant programmer and a person who was more focused than evil. He didn’t appear to consciously cheat anyone as much as just work on an idea to the exception of everything else.
The person who comes of looking bad, I think, is the founder of Napster. He is presented as a paranoid, parasitic sleazeball charmer.
I liked the movie and fail to see how it made Zuckerberg look bad? Obviously his best friend was going to be left behind. That’s the kind of foreshadowing I picked up on early. Whether or not one wants to phrase it as being because he made it into one of the exclusive clubs or not its pretty clear he (Eduardo) was going to be left off of the train.
As for the Winkle Vi? LOL. If i hire someone to build some great idea I have… then I run the risk of getting screwed out of the idea. Ideas are in the air… I thought it was a great look at a slice in time… and whether or not Mark Z is the kind of guy I’d want to sit next to and watch the Bears game isn’t relevant IMO. Great writing by Sorkin… excellent movie…
I thought that Zuckerberg in the movie came out as mildly autistic, or at least afflicted with asperger’s. He wasn’t evil or anything, but clearly had little to no understanding of social communication. I’ve never seen an interview with the real Zuckerberg, so I have no idea how accurate this is. I do at least know from pictures that contrary to Eisenberg’s portrayal of him, Mark Zuckerberg’s face is not constantly affixed in that weird pout.
The movie was fine, I suppose. Certainly beautifully shot. The scene of the regata was incredible. Well-paced, as well, but I found the dialog endlessly irritating. I have no idea to what extent the events of the movie are factual, but everything seemed so sensationalized I couldn’t take it seriously. I also found Justin Timberlake’s performance painful.
Yeah, I don’t think that Zuckerberg comes out as a monster at all. Certainly he screwed over Eduardo. But it’s also easy to see some justification from his perspective, and he also clearly wasn’t comfortable with what he’d done.
One thing I think is interesting is how I feel the film portrayed the two lawsuits. I feel like the film pretty clearly comes down on Eduardo’s side of that lawsuit. Regardless of how out of touch he was, and the extent to which he had checked out for a few key months, he clearly and unambiguously deserved to own 30%. At the same time, I feel like the film was much more agnostic about the other lawsuit. It presented the twins and that other guys as kind of douchy, but clearly not bad or unethical people. And Zuckerberg clearly was dicking them around, and it’s also far from implausible that some of his inspiration for Facebook was based on their project, although it’s also far from clear. It certainly didn’t strike me as a miscarriage of justice for them to end up with a “small” settlement.
Really excellent movie, overall.
Interesting. I actually thought Timberlake did a surprisingly (to me at least) good job with a somewhat difficult part. Parker was supposed to be an over-the-top personality, and I think the effect of having a massive celebrity play a massive celebrity in the computing world was effective. YMMV, of course.
I also didn’t know until reading this thread that the twins were played by the same guy. Well played, editors.
One thing I came out wanting to know was just how egregiously Edaurdo screwed himself. Was it something that even 5 minutes of reading the contracts would have made obvious to a businessman like himself? Or was it a much more devious screwing over? Either way I think it’s pretty clear that he deserved much better, and justice was likely served when he ended up getting it.
As for the Winklevosses, I am rather hesitant to feel sorry for someone that blabs about their great idea with only a verbal contract backing them up. If you know your idea is so great, write up a NDA and a contract and get some signatures before talking about it. That said, I think the movie did a good job portraying them as relatively well-rounded and reasonable people… must be very difficult to swallow losing out on such a massive amount of money, fame, and power because you gave your idea to the wrong guy.
IMDB says the Winklevossi were played by two different people. The Social Network (2010) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb
And I hate to keep bringing up the book (especially since I haven’t even seen the movie yet), but in the book Zuckerberg doesn’t even agree to a verbal contract. The twins meet with him, ask him to work on their site and maybe, eventually, he’d get some some kind of payment.
Hm… Josh Pence doesn’t really look like Armie Hammer. I’m thinking Pence was a body double, with some fancy editing to get Hammer’s head on when needed?
That certainly seems plausible from the movie - it was one of the points that got an aforementioned “you’re lying” during the deposition. As they say, a verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on anyways. 
One nice part was that almost every bit of technology shown in the film was accurately depicted.
They set up textual web-servers when we were watching a site getting hits, and showed actual hits from actual (emulated) addresses. They used older versions of KDE, changing them up based on the time period. There was all sorts of cool stuff like that, and they probably screwed up something but the attention to detail was fantastic.
Article re. the CGI involved in creating the “Winklevi”
I also thought the Zuckerman character as portrayed obviously skewed towards Aspergers or some sort of social disorder.
My favorite part with Timberlake’s character was during the scene in the club when they’re shouting at each other over the music and the lighting on his face is making him seem more and more satanic and maniacal as he wins Zuckerman over. A brilliant piece of film making.
One thing that no one else has mentioned yet is that the film version of Zuckerberg seems to have an awful lot in common with Aaron Sorkin, and various characters he has written based on his own douchy, socially awkward self. I saw his interview with Colbert on Thursday, and while watching the film, I couldn’t help being reminded of him, particularly in Zuckerberg’s interactions with women, his desperate need to be part of the social network, and his immature plotting of revenge against people whom he thinks has wronged him. If Sorkin made up a bunch of stuff that wasn’t in the book, he didn’t go very far to find his source.
Just came from viewing this in the theatre. On the way out, one moviegoer commented that the movie was basically saying the way to get rich is to screw over your friends.
This was after the movie ended with a text-over saying the Winklevosses got a $65 million settlement and Saverin ended up with an undisclosed sum (rumored to be worth a 6% stake). I don’t know about you, but I would gladly welcome any of my friends “screwing me over” by paying me millions of dollars.
There are plenty of people who really get screwed, with small or non-existent settlements. And then there’s people like Conan O’Brien who got “screwed” to the tune of over $30 million extra dollars in his pocket. If screwing your friends is one day to get rich, then surely getting “screwed” seems to be another path to riches, too.
Huh. Very interesting. I would’ve thought it would’ve been much cheaper just to cast an actual pair of twins, but evidently they tried that and just couldn’t find the right pair of tall, handsome, crew-rowing talented actors, so they went the CGI route. The body double is an heir to the Armand Hammer fortune… and did you notice, in the scene where Eduardo realizes he’s been screwed, strides over and trashes Zuckerberg’s computer, MZ is wearing an Arm & Hammer T-shirt?
I saw the movie tonight and liked it very much. MZ definitely came across as a socially clueless douchebag to me, with the ex-Napster guy as his Rasputin. Good acting by the entire cast, Timberlake included, and nice editing, with adroit cutting in and out of the depositions and the various characters’ memories. Didn’t seem like Rashomon to me - it seemed to make it clear that MZ was leading on the Winklevi and their buddy, developing thefacebook.com secretly while giving them lame excuses as to why he couldn’t meet with them or show them his work to date.
Two thumbs up, regardless of actual historical accuracy.
FWIW, my friend who works at Facebook said that Zuckerberg gave the employees time off and bought them tickets to go and see the movie.
Who did Sorkin immaturely plot revenge against?
Nope, that’s what I was referring to. I guess being based on a book is less interesting.
And sorry for the lack of antecedent in my previous post–“it” referred to the movie.
You’ve got it reversed: Armie Hammer is the voice and face of both twins and the body of one; Josh Pence is the double.
Ah, thanks.
Nitpick: the Winklevosses. Apostrophes don’t make plurals.