criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:48 pm Yes, the Social Network, a film still widely considered to be one of the best of the era, “aged poorly“ because it didn’t depict things that hadn’t happened yet

Wisdom often consists of foreseeing the potential future effect of an instrument before that effect grabs us in its irreversible grip. Please read "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", a prescient book written in 1970's by Jerry Mander. Highly recommended. Also see the documentary "The Social Dilemma" running on Netflix now. Perhaps we can see "The Social Network" as a work of art, praise it as such, and not expect more than that. But it seems obvious to some of us that we have created an instrument every bit as lethal as a nuclear bomb, because it gets into the consciousness of unsuspecting millions and modifies their behavior. In wrong people's hands it can and will be used to destroy democracies around the globe. I don't criticize Fincher for the film, but for the limits of his vision.

I can’t see the future, thanks for killing my dream of ever becoming a director

kekid wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:51 am

domino harvey wrote: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:48 pm Yes, the Social Network, a film still widely considered to be one of the best of the era, “aged poorly“ because it didn’t depict things that hadn’t happened yet

Wisdom often consists of foreseeing the potential future effect of an instrument before that effect grabs us in its irreversible grip. Please read "Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television", a prescient book written in 1970's by Jerry Mander. Highly recommended. Also see the documentary "The Social Dilemma" running on Netflix now. Perhaps we can see "The Social Network" as a work of art, praise it as such, and not expect more than that. But it seems obvious to some of us that we have created an instrument every bit as lethal as a nuclear bomb, because it gets into the consciousness of unsuspecting millions and modifies their behavior. In wrong people's hands it can and will be used to destroy democracies around the globe. I don't criticize Fincher for the film, but for the limits of his vision.

Your post is definitely a compelling argument for right click deleting the internet, but prob not the way you intended.

All the cool kids know the real nuclear bombs are over on twitter anyways. #chickenlittle

therewillbeblus wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 3:47 am Well I never said Welles' film wasn't relevant, resonant, or great. It is all of those things. I used the word "more" and finished with "in my opinion" knowing it's a contentious one. To clarify, it's more relevant to me, subjectively, today- and generation Y's social insecurities and technology's role in evolving them would certainly not have been relevant in the 40s.

#notallmillenials

kekid wrote: Thu Oct 08, 2020 4:51 amI don't criticize Fincher for the film, but for the limits of his vision.

What a bizarre criticism. Surely it was a conscious decision to "limit his vision" by focusing on a tightly circumscribed timeframe and not get into the wider philosophical ramifications of social networks in general?

Your comment reminds me of a negative review of the film Crawl that complained about it not including a finger-wagging lecture about the evils of global warming and rising sea levels, as if an efficient 87-minute alligator-driven suspenser needed any such thing.

Sorry, hard pass-- Trent Reznor should have anticipated his work on Mank before completing the music for this one =;

Huh?

Did... did you read this page of the thread?

Not really. I do tend to tune out some of the arguments here.

Honestly, probably a good call on this one at least

Murdoch wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:48 pm Social Network sequel in production, written and directed by Sorkin

He’s an awful director, and I’m just not interested without Fincher

This will never get off the ground, but I’m going to have to strongly disagree that he’s a bad director. His direction has been the best part of his three movies and he’s adapted that to better scripts as time has gone on.

I'm cautiously optimistic. It seems that Sorkin is interested in broadening the scope outside of Zuckerberg and touching on how utterly destructive social media has been (particularly in the American political landscape).

knives wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:57 pm This will never get off the ground, but I’m going to have to strongly disagree that he’s a bad director. His direction has been the best part of his three movies and he’s adapted that to better scripts as time has gone on.

Yeah, I haven’t seen any Sorkin since Molly’s Game but I remember being surprised that it was better directed than written

Given everything that's happened with social media since the movie, it's obviously promising material to return to and I hope Sorkin pulls it off. I'm not optimistic he will as I'm generally not a fan of his work, but I think The Social Network was a really good fit for him and a major exception.

Might be fun if he did a Steve Jobs style three-parter about the birth, success, and downfall of Twitter. El*n M*sk would be a hell of a part for a ham actor.

beamish14 wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:55 pm

Murdoch wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:48 pm Social Network sequel in production, written and directed by Sorkin

He’s an awful director, and I’m just not interested without Fincher

Would be funny if QT directed

Matt wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:12 pm Might be fun if he did a Steve Jobs style three-parter about the birth, success, and downfall of Twitter. El*n M*sk would be a hell of a part for a ham actor.

I could see him doing this, but it also reflects what I don't like about his work, where there's a tidiness and resolution to whatever question he's addressing that usually comes off as a gross oversimplification put across with a condescending tone. Even when he's trying to be nice and sincere, he betrays the same problems over and over again - the episode of The West Wing that aired right after 9/11 starts with an ostensible honor student asking "why does everyone hate us?" an inane and ridiculously naive question answered with the even-more inane and ridiculous answer, "because they hate our freedom."

hearthesilence wrote: Sat Jun 28, 2025 6:23 pm

Matt wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:12 pm Might be fun if he did a Steve Jobs style three-parter about the birth, success, and downfall of Twitter. El*n M*sk would be a hell of a part for a ham actor.

I could see him doing this, but it also reflects what I don't like about his work, where there's a tidiness and resolution to whatever question he's addressing that usually comes off as a gross oversimplification put across with a condescending tone. Even when he's trying to be nice and sincere, he betrays the same problems over and over again - the episode of The West Wing that aired right after 9/11 starts with an ostensible honor student asking "why does everyone hate us?" an inane and ridiculously naive question answered with the even-more inane and ridiculous answer, "because they hate our freedom."

There is an episode of his awful series Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip where one of the crew members feels compelled to explain “Who’s on First” to his two-dimensional Flyover State parents who just don’t understand humor or culture at all. He constantly panders and lectures, and I hate it.

Sorkin’s persistent tone of superiority is part of the charm and when it works it’s a key component of his success. Studio 60 was def where the wheels were starting to come off the plane, though his greatest popular success still came after that so never count him out, I guess

Murdoch wrote: Fri Jun 27, 2025 6:48 pm Social Network sequel in production, written and directed by Sorkin

Eisenberg has passed on reprising his Oscar-nominated role

I revisited this film tonight and found myself hollering at the screen in my house. Where do I begin? The film has not only aged perfectly but is more revealing of truth than reality itself. Early in the film, Zuckerberg is cheating his way through an art history final with prompts, using Facebook the same way college students would use CHATGPT today. At the end of the film, Sean Parker says nearly verbatim that we will live life itself on the internet. But beyond merely predicting the future as it would be, the psychology of these characters is perfect as well. A bunch of assholes that figured out how computers would work before everyone else, acting out their revenge fantasies. Revenge against a boss that fired you. Revenge against a girl who slighted you. Revenge against the music industry. "I took them down, I'm a big man now." I'm well won over by the film's style too. The rowing scene at Oxford is so gorgeously shot. The soundtrack is perfect, and the dialogue is incredibly witty and well-written.

I don't think the film should solely be judged based on how right it got everything. But credit where it's due. The real Zuckerberg nit-picked the film upon release since he actually had a girlfriend all throughout college. Missing the forest for the trees in a way the character in the movie never did.

I can't remember if it's somewhere else on this forum or from the old days of Twitter where I read someone pointing out that Fincher seemed to hate Ben Affleck, and seemingly attempted to make the audience hate him. Fincher's loathing of almost all of his characters feels palpable. Maybe I am misreading, but could a first scene more perfectly capture "assholes at a college party?" Of course, we also hate Zuckerberg, the loser actually being a smug creep.

My wife joined me at the end of the film. "I didn't think I could hate Mark Zuckerberg more than I already did." I'm inclined to agree.