Join 3,516 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


How Did They Ever Make a Movie of Facebook?
February 3, 2011 1:27 AM   Subscribe

Watch the 93 minute documentary on the making of The Social Network for free on IMDB - How Did They Ever Make a Movie of Facebook? (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4) (via)
posted by slimepuppy (29 comments total) 21 users marked this as a favorite

 
Why did they ever make movie of Facebook?
posted by twoleftfeet at 1:45 AM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


Why did they ever make movie of Facebook?

The kids seem to be diggin' it, and just like Facebook, it's all about them and their generation.

It's a freakin' hall of ego stroking mirrors, I tell ya!

(PS: Get off of my lawn.)
posted by fairmettle at 2:12 AM on February 3, 2011


How Did They Ever Make a Movie of Facebook?

They didn't. They made a movie of a book. It's not rocket surgery.

And now there's a documentary about the movie of the book.

And an FPP about that.

MetaFilter, indeed.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:16 AM on February 3, 2011 [11 favorites]


Why did they ever make movie of Facebook?

If you make it about 50 seconds into the first part, you'll have the primary cast talking about exactly that.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:19 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


it's all about them and their generation

Is their generation as misogynistic as portrayed in the movie, particularly toward Asian women?

How Did They Ever Make a Movie of Facebook?

They didn't. They made a movie of a book.


About the people who created Facebook. The movie about the users of Facebook and its social impact remains to be made.
posted by fuse theorem at 3:06 AM on February 3, 2011


The movie about the users of Facebook and its social impact remains to be made.

I think social networking will filter its way into more and more narrative films as time goes on - how can it not? It will be interesting to see how filmmakers deal with that. For a film about Facebook, The Social Network pretty much sidesteps the actual use of the website. (Which, to be honest, I don't think Aaron Sorkin was interested in at all. Pity.(

I think, in the end, I find the social impact of FB, etc, to be far more interesting than the rather dull story of its creation. The only reason this film about a maladjusted nerd who created a website got made is because of FB's wide social impact, as Mark Zuckerberg really isn't that interesting as a character and the creation of the website itself is fairly dull (ie. it's relatively straightforward without any real narrative jeopardy).
posted by crossoverman at 3:35 AM on February 3, 2011


Even if the movie stank like rotted turnips it was well written and directed well and well acted. Artfully arranged rotten turnips.

It's a story about greed and maybe with the exception of the Lawrence Sommers scene (which was beautiful in ways the stupidity of the rest of the movie might not even be able to appreciate)(actually the scene when they meet Prince Edward(?) was pretty nice too) an amoral, remorseless endorsement of blind financial striving.
posted by From Bklyn at 4:38 AM on February 3, 2011


Is this the thread about The Pirates of Silicon Valley getting nominated for an Academy Award? I love that Anthony Michael Hall guy.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:40 AM on February 3, 2011


Ah, is this the thread where we all talk about how cool we are for not liking that movie lots of other people liked?
posted by sleepcrime at 5:41 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


How Did They Ever Make a Movie of Facebook?

They didn't. They made a movie of a book. It's not rocket surgery.

And now there's a documentary about the movie of the book.

And an FPP about that.

MetaFilter, indeed.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:16 AM on February 3


I considered calling you out on MetaTalk over this...
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:47 AM on February 3, 2011 [1 favorite]


I really like this. I'm only two parts through it so far, but it's not horribly spoilerish. Instead, it shows some of the interesting mechanics of movie making and of the actor process.

(Like, at the end of part one, they have a makeup and costume test run sequence. Of course, if you're spending millions of dollars on a movie, you'd take the time to put them on the actors and see what they look like from every angle. But why had that never occurred to me before?)
posted by hippybear at 6:22 AM on February 3, 2011


Title of the doc's a callback to the tagline that was used to promote Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of that famous book by Nabokov: "How did they ever make a movie of Lolita?"

Also, this doc is pretty sweet. Highly recommended for a fairly candid look at Fincher's creative process. Much better than the typical EPK dross.
posted by Joey Bagels at 6:39 AM on February 3, 2011


(I)Ah, is this the thread where we all talk about how cool we are for not liking that movie lots of other people liked?(/I)

Yes and having an at least slightly ridiculous reason for it.
posted by From Bklyn at 6:58 AM on February 3, 2011


I liked the movie.

Have I now lost all my Metacred?
posted by BozoBurgerBonanza at 7:20 AM on February 3, 2011


In this, the statistic is quoted (and I've heard it elsewhere too) that out the ten top-grossing movies of the last ten years (so 100 movies), 74 are sequels, remakes, or adaptations of other things (books, comics, video games, etc). Why? Because it's incredibly efficient.

When you make a movie about Transformers, you don't have to advertise as much -- people coming to your movie already know what Transformers are. You don't have to bog down your movie with exposition -- people who already know what Transformers are don't care about the story, they just want to see Transformers. This turns out to save you so much goddamned money that it even pays to do adaptations of things that are so unnatural it seems like parody (Battleship?) or things that were adapted just a couple years before (Hulk, Spiderman). In fact you can even take a regular movie that has nothing to do with an adapted property and slap a label on it, despite that label not really making any intellectual sense (The Karate Kid).

So that's the answer to "why make a movie about Facebook?" Because it's free money. Given this state of affairs, it was almost inevitable that a movie about Facebook would be made eventually, based on a book or not. It's a toss-up as to which feature is more surprising: that the movie's actually pretty good, and that they didn't just straight-up call it "The Facebook Movie".
posted by penduluum at 7:33 AM on February 3, 2011


No way. A million dollars isn't cool. You know what is cool? Circles!
posted by schmod at 7:46 AM on February 3, 2011


Why? Because it's incredibly efficient.

It's not just advertising though. It's a lot easier to have a thousand feature writers researching interesting stories for monthly magazines, then have the best of those expanded into books, then option those books. Rather than do all the research at the movie level, where everything is terribly expensive.

posted by smackfu at 7:55 AM on February 3, 2011


Why did they ever make movie of Facebook?

The kids seem to be diggin' it, and just like Facebook, it's all about them and their generation.


I dunno, I'm one of those kids (joined Facebook in summer 2005, after it was pretty widespread in colleges but before it got opened up to high schools and then the rest of the planet), and none of my friends seem to be buzzing about the movie. In fact, when a group of us saw the trailer for it, in front of Inception I think, we all went, "They're making a movie about Facebook? Who would want to watch that? And jeez, what a blatant attempt to cash in on the hot new thing." Instead, it feels more to me like The Social Network is the movie that's making the older generations go, "Ah yes, this perfectly describes these kids on our lawn," when we don't identify with it nearly so strongly ourselves.

Of course, I run in pretty atypical circles (engineering grad students and similarly nerdy folk), so maybe we're just not the standard spokespeople for our generation.
posted by sigmagalator at 7:57 AM on February 3, 2011


Is their generation as misogynistic as portrayed in the movie, particularly toward Asian women?

Also, this bothers the hell out of me, but I don't really have the time or energy to get in a big fight about it, especially when I can't quite discern the intent with which it was written. I'll just say that if anyone thinks an entire generation can be defined by a few privileged Harvard students (in fact, not even necessarily the students themselves, but portrayals of them which are at least partially fictionalized and very possibly exaggerated for dramatic effect), then they're looking through an awfully tiny and distorted lens.
posted by sigmagalator at 8:10 AM on February 3, 2011


Is their generation as misogynistic as portrayed in the movie, particularly toward Asian women?

Do you even know what misogyny is? If so, where is it in the movie?

Misogyny means the hatred of women, not "no well-defined female roles in a picture".
posted by dobbs at 8:42 AM on February 3, 2011


"The movie about the users of Facebook and its social impact remains to be made."

"The Social Network pretty much sidesteps the actual use of the website."


I thought the movie said plenty about the social impact of the website, at least indirectly. Several characters' pasts came back to haunt them (the bit about the chicken, for example). In the last scene, when Rashida Jones talks about jury selection, Sorkin is also talking about the dangerous permanency of online social networking and blogging :

"Doesn't matter. I asked the question and now everybody's thinking about it. You've lost your jury in the first 10 minutes." [...] "But I was drunk and angry and stupid"

And on a meta level, the biographical discrepancy between the movie Zuckerberg and the real-life Zuckerberg is a stand-in for the disparity between the profiles we put online and the truth. And then there are the themes that your Facebook 'friends' are not really your friends and it's social insecurities plus a grass-is-greener human nature that leave us wanting and empty despite an age of unprecedented connectivity. Sure, the movie has its flaws but it's definitely more than a straightforward biopic.
posted by marco_nj at 8:51 AM on February 3, 2011


but it's not horribly spoilerish

How can someone spoil a movie based on a true story? Is this spoilerish?
posted by muddgirl at 9:13 AM on February 3, 2011


Yes? All that matters is whether it is a story you don't know the details to. Truth or fiction doesn't matter.
posted by smackfu at 10:48 AM on February 3, 2011


All that matters is whether it is a story you don't know the details to. Truth or fiction doesn't matter.

Gosh, my high school history teacher was terrible about spoilers!
posted by muddgirl at 10:56 AM on February 3, 2011


Do you even know what misogyny is? If so, where is it in the movie?

Misogyny means the hatred of women, not "no well-defined female roles in a picture".


Aaron Sorkin, is that you?

Look, I'm hardly the first person who's made that observation about the movie. Just google "the social network + misogyny" if you doubt it. I walked out of that movie somewhat appalled at the way most of the women in that film, particularly the Asian ones, were made to look like drunken whores just trying to hook themselves a Harvard man. Sorkin apparently took the criticism to heart and mainly addressed it by pointing out the 2 or 3 women in the film who weren't portrayed as girls gone wild.

I'll just say that if anyone thinks an entire generation can be defined by a few privileged Harvard students (in fact, not even necessarily the students themselves, but portrayals of them which are at least partially fictionalized and very possibly exaggerated for dramatic effect), then they're looking through an awfully tiny and distorted lens.

That would not be me. I was taking exception to the "it's all about them and their generation" remark. A later poster commented that "their generation" is perhaps not particularly wowed by this film so I guess most of the accolades are coming from the other generations. Perhaps it's the ones most impressed by Zuckerberg's ability to "create" a multi-billion-dollar worldwide social technology phenomenon by screwing over some of his classmates.
posted by fuse theorem at 2:05 PM on February 3, 2011 [2 favorites]


I finally got around to seeing the movie this past Sunday ... my experience was that all the individual parts (acting, directing, editing, writing, music) were well-made, but in the end I just couldn't bring myself to care very much. In other words I didn't feel like I'd had any kind of experience watching the film. But I'm certainly biased as an anti-facebooker.
posted by mannequito at 9:23 PM on February 3, 2011


Aaron Sorkin does not write women well, unless the women are basically men in disguise. He's had that problem since he wrote A Few Good Men.
posted by every_one_needs_a_hug_sometimes at 9:26 PM on February 3, 2011


To be fair, Aaron Sorkin doesn't write men particularly well, either.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:35 PM on February 3, 2011


Please. The two main female characters in the film - the female love interest at the start, and the female lawyer at the end, were both fleshed out, self-respecting independent women. Just because the film features female groupies it's misogynistic? Does a film featuring any minority (arguable vis a vis female) have to necessarily include an accurate representation of every subset of that minority? The other female characters were simply filling in space. If you go out to the films trying to be offended at representation of women you're going to assume they were the main female characters but in terms of influence on the actual leads and relevant dialog they are way behind. The film features two asian female groupies, thus it must obviously be implying that all asian females have low self respect? If the apparent misogyny was backed up by something else, maybe. Even if the main characters display misogynistic characteristics that doesn't say anything about the director, or the movie.
Ugh. People don't accuse the director of "downfall" of being a racist for portraying racist characters, or having elements of racism featured in his story, why is the threshold for misogyny so low compared to other types of bigotry?
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 2:10 AM on February 5, 2011


« Older Why Nielsen Ratings Are Inaccurate, and Why They'l...  |  Mom, why did you circumcise me... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments