Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly. I think The Social Network took a biased book and made a movie that would appeal to the masses, accuracy be damned.
Did you ever get around to seeing the movie?
The book probably did indeed have some bias, and from what I have read, the filmmakers actually drew from all sorts of source material. For weeks before the release of the movie, there was plenty of buzz about what was and wasn't true. Sean Parker himself hated his portrayal, yet admired the movie.
Not sure about marketing to the masses. TSN caught fire with the critics and some younger people, though, and there was definitely a semi-literate demographic that appreciated the rapid-fire dialogue and situational irony.
Nice the Academy deigned to acknowledge Sorkin's adapted screenplay with an Oscar.
Quote:
I found much more depth to The King's Speech. It wasn't a box office magnet for the younger movie-going set, though. Nice to see it gained ground with the intellectual and older demographic and that it won so many Academy Awards.
Yes. The Academy Awards for The King's Speech were no great surprise, same as the movie's familiar story arc of hardship transcended into triumph.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film and all of the performances, but year after year, this is the kind of movie that wins Oscars.
Reminds me of 1976, our bicentennial year, when Network, Bound for Glory, Taxi Driver and All the President's Men were nominated for Best Picture, along with Rocky.
Guess which film won.
The same Ronald Kessler that tried to place Obama listening to a Reverand Wright sermon about "white arrogance" but was dead-wrong so he tried to change the facts in his Wikipedia entry? That guy?
In "In The President's Secret Service" Obama and Biden fare very well. They are liked by the Secret Service.
One thing that I thought of when rolling all of this around in my brain is that good stories are not ones that need a lot of adjustment. I can understand adjustments that are necessitated b/c of the nature of film, but the idea that one has to "make a better story" is a little disturbing; I've always found reality much more interesting than fiction b/c it is reality, and many real stories don't need to be changed. It's almost insulting to the audience that filmmakers seem to think so.
Something I think about a lot is the concept of "story truth vs. happening truth" as explained in Tim O'Brien's book The Things They Carried. His point was that in the hands of a good storyteller, a fictionalized truth can resonate more and be more real and more true than what actually happened.
Yes. The Academy Awards for The King's Speech were no great surprise, same as the movie's familiar story arc of hardship transcended into triumph.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the film and all of the performances, but year after year, this is the kind of movie that wins Oscars.
Reminds me of 1976, our bicentennial year, when Network, Bound for Glory, Taxi Driver and All the President's Men were nominated for Best Picture, along with Rocky.
Guess which film won.
I've found your repeated gyrations in an attempt to somehow turn this Facebook movie into a highbrow affair to be a bit amusing.
Something I think about a lot is the concept of "story truth vs. happening truth" as explained in Tim O'Brien's book The Things They Carried. His point was that in the hands of a good storyteller, a fictionalized truth can resonate more and be more real and more true than what actually happened.
He's certainly entitled to his opinion; I just happen to believe that it's ridiculous.
There is no such thing as fiction that is more "real" than reality, no matter how you try to reason it. By definition, fiction is not more real or truer than reality no matter how good the storyteller.
I think that TSN is evidence of that; it's "manufactued reality"--what we want to be real, how we want to see the world rather than how it actually is. And the reason being is that fictional stories--especially myths--are easier to process and judge; they've already done the thinking for you.
I prefer to do my own thinking, thank you very much
He's certainly entitled to his opinion; I just happen to believe that it's ridiculous.
There is no such thing as fiction that is more "real" than reality, no matter how you try to reason it. By definition, fiction is not more real or truer than reality no matter how good the storyteller.
I think that TSN is evidence of that; it's "manufactued reality"--what we want to be real, how we want to see the world rather than how it actually is. And the reason being is that fictional stories--especially myths--are easier to process and judge; they've already done the thinking for you.
I prefer to do my own thinking, thank you very much
Well, if you prefer "truth" there are plenty of news channels and non-fiction documentaries out there.
The Winklevoss twins were played by one actor...Armie Hammer.
There were actually two actors for the bodies (Armie Hammer and another guy) They did several takes and the editors cut and pasted Armie Hammer's face onto the other guy's body.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
