Talk:The Social Network/Archive 1

Archive 1

Details

Will the movie contain the part where Zuckerberg sends im's to his friend talking about how he has everyones private info and knows where everyone lives etc calling them names for trusting him? Is that why he's against it? --24.94.251.190 (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Definitely not an ensemble cast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.4.228 (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The screenplay would suggest otherwise. Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Brenda Song,[2] Rashida Jones, Max Minghella, Rooney Mara, Malese Jow, and Joseph Mazzello all play pretty prominent characters that have significant and distinct roles within the narrative. If the movie ends up mostly resembling the screenplay, it seems like an "ensemble" type movie. -- - Gwopy 21:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

500 million mentioned in the poster? It's gonna be more than that by the time this movie comes out. Gary King (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess not! Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Citzen Kane of the 21st Century

I'm about Mark Zuckerberg's age and it is rather interesting to see such a drama about someone so young and yet so controversial. Seeing as how Zuckerberg is against this film, would it be wrong to compare it with William Randolph Hearst's reaction to Citizen Kane? --Bushido Hacks (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not wrong if you can link to a reliable source saying so, but if it's your own original research I'd leave it out. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Screenplay excerpts/links

Aaron Sorkin's screenplay is up online. Is it appropriate to quote it or link to it? - Gwopy 21:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Depends upon where it's hosted. Is it official, or a bootleg version, or...? -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It is bootleged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Music

I've seen a couple comments online where users want to know the musical group behind the cover for Radiohead's "Creep" played as background music in "The Social Network" trailer.

The group is a Belgian women's choir - Scala & Kolacny Brothers.

Due to possible COI, I cannot in good faith place reference links to the sources of this info, but I believe adding information about the group would be valuable to the page. There is already a reference to this movie page on the musical group's page (see above link). There is a fair amount of search volume, user comments/questions, and YouTube views for this cover song:

• Radiohead's 'Creep' Sung by Choir Soundtracks Facebook Movie Trailer
• 'The Social Network' Trailer Music Makes Everything Dramatic
• 'The Social Network' trailer: Who's that choir covering Radiohead's 'Creep'?

≈Netizen1138 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reinforce what Netizen1138 wrote... 109.64.3.172 (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Casting

The article currently states "Shia LaBeouf and Michael Cera were previously considered for the role of Mark Zuckerberg" but the nearest citation does not support this assertion. Where does this statement come from, and how "considered" was "considered"? Did the other actors audition? Were there any negotiations with them or their agents? Or were their names just on some development executive's brainstorming Post-It note? Robert K S (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Budget claim

The claim of a $47 million budget does not come from any reliable source. The cited source here took the figure from a site called News in Film, which itself took that figure from a minor website called End of Show that does not say where that figure came from! That is not a reliable source — it's not a news organization itself, and if it didn't investigate and report the figure itself but was taking it from elsewhere, we need the original source. This figure appears to be some movie fan's guess or pass-along of a rumor. That is far below the bar of encyclopedic standard. Please cite Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Film Journal International or some other legitimate news organization that tells you where the figure comes from. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Truffle removed from EL

As that site itself says, "We are NOT reporters, jounalist [sic] or professional media. 100% of the content on The Daily Truffle comes from friends who go out or have jobs or families that make it so they are naturally in all the right places." This is not a usable, reliable source per WP:RS. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn (based on consensus and article titles guidelines) -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The Social Network → The Social Network (film) — Without the prefix "The" this article shares the same title as Social network. As per Project Film's naming convention, I propose this article should be moved to The Social Network with (film) postpended. I've already dropped disambiguation hatnotes on both pages. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 13:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose as unnecessary precision. Aside from "The", there is also a capitalization difference. Someone searching for or linking to "The Social Network" is more likely to be looking for the movie than for the social network article. And even if that wasn't true, The Social Network is getting 5 times the pageviews of social network this month, so is primary usage. The new hatnote is helpful for those looking for something else. Station1 (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, "the" and capitalization are enough to disambiguate. Recury (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Station1's justification. The disambiguation (film) is used to disambiguate a film title from a primary topic, and there is not one here. The closest possibility is social network, but like Recury said, capitalization (e.g., Panic Room vs. panic room) and use of "The" disambiguate the film well enough. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. The two article titles are already sufficiently disambiguated. PC78 (talk) 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • A-ha, this makes it clear. I wasn't aware of this higher level guideline:

Examples:

• Diacritics: canon vs. cañon
• Capitalization: WASP vs. Wasp; Red Meat vs. Red meat

In such cases, remember that a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so use appropriate disambiguation techniques (such as hatnotes or disambiguation pages) to ensure that readers can find all possible target articles.

— WP, WP:PRECISION

-- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• WITHDRAWN -- Article titles (Precision) provides clear guidance in these cases, which supercedes Project: Film suggestions. Thanks to those who contributed to the clear consensus above. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism

There's been a *lot* of vandalism lately. Request to lock article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.177.65.214 (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Headlines to use

• The Mark Zuckerberg-'Social Network' PR battle

Feel free to add headlines for use here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Positive reviews are not "Acclaim"

An editor and IP editor have been adding "critical acclaim" to the lead. I've removed it again and replaced with "positive reviews". "Critical acclaim" does not come within a week of the film being released. Yes it has good reviews, but if you are going to call that "critical claim", where do you go if and when it wins any awards? "Critical worship"? "Positive reviews" is far more neutral, encyclopaedic and, when all is said and done, accurate. This article is not here to hype the movie. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I find both "critical acclaim" and "positive reviews" to be acceptable. I can somewhat understand perceiving "critical acclaim" as more long-term, but current news articles are using that term for the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I also took out the "critical acclaim" once, so its been added back a few times. To be the most accurate, the film opened to -primarily- positive reviews; not every review is positive. But the current wording is fine for me. 71.197.183.28 (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)davepl

"Positive reviews" would indicate that reviewers liked the film. "Acclaim" indicates that they loved it, or gave "enthusiastic approval". Rotten Tomatoes reports the critics' consensus using terms like "impeccably", "beautifully", and "filmmaking at its finest". That sounds pretty enthusiastic. Also, Metacritic's official consensus assessment uses the word "acclaim". It would be just hyping the movie to call the reviews "acclaim" if there really was just mere approval, but there really is acclaim generally in the film's reviews. As such, using the word is accurate and, if anything, saying simply "positive reviews" is to understate the critical approval. 99.192.94.157 (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The connotations are clearly different, however. "Positive reviews" is as neutral as can be. That's what we strive for when writing an subjective things like opinions. There is no set definition for what is "critical acclaim" and what is not. One person may see terms like "filmmaking at its finest" and think "hyperbole" or "critic trying to get quoted in an ad." Using the NPOV term "positive reviews" is concrete and objective. "Critical acclaim", aside from being a cliche, appears to be subjective or we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, "positive" is just as subjective as "acclaim" is. Rotten Tomatoes counts reviews of 2 1/2 stars out of 4 as a negative review. I wouldn't. But if a reviewer says a film is "adequately" made, I'd consider it a negative statement while others might see it as positive. "Positive" is no less subjective than "acclaim".

Secondly, reading "filmmaking at its finest" as "hyperbole" or "critic trying to get quoted in an ad" is to offer an interpretation of why the reviewer acclaimed the film. Even if the reviewer is being hyperbolic or just trying to get quoted (how many times has Larry King called a film the best he has ever seen?), the fact remains that "filmmaking at its finest" is a description of acclaim.

Thirdly, you seem to ignore that the word "acclaim" was specifically used by Metacritic, so for the article to use that word is just to report the claim that they explicitly make. Metacritic might be engaging in interpretation by using the word, but this article is not by repeating it. 99.192.48.43 (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC) (=99.192.94.157)

If "positive" is subjective, then "critical acclaim" must be even more so. But I agree with you that I wouldn't use adjectives in the "Critical reception" area — indeed, I've always just said, "Such-and-such film scored a xx % on the film-critics aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes and a xx % on the aggregate site Metacritic." I think we have common ground. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The film has recieved universal acclaim. See Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB, Meta Critic. I've tried to edit it in that it has recieved universall accliam which is has, but people keep changing it to 'critical acclaim'. On Meta Critic is has "indicated universal accliam" and it's obviously it has recieved that by all the high scores on every movie site. So if this movie in your view has "critical accliam" then I might as well go and edit the Toy Story pages to "critical acclaim" instead of "universal" because they have the same very high score as this film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 21:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not withstanding what Meta Critic may wish to say, "universal" has a very clear meaning; everyone. That is impossible to verify, no-one knows if absolutely everyone likes it, so it has to be an opinion. Leads are best kept to stating neutral facts. There is plenty of room for opinions later in the article. As Tenebrae suggests above, if you think that Meta Critic's analysis is significant enough for the lead then state the bare statistics; Metacritic scored the film 95 out of 100. That tells the reader all the need to know factually and neutrally. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reviewer who didn't like it. So by the very definition of the word, critical acclaim is not "universal". Metacritic is engaging in an opinion that is not factual in its description. The lead is not the place for that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

But if "universal"'s clear meaning is everyone then why does the Lord of the Rings trilogy have "universal acclaim"? And The Dollars trilogy and Toy Story Trilogy have "universal accliam" and also Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I've read neagative reviews for those films so shall someone go and change the wikipedia page for those films so each one just has "critical"? Charlr6

Well, to take two of your examples (I can't find what you say in the others). One says "nearly universal". And the other clearly attributes it in quotes to Metacritic and not to be taken literally. And neither attempt to include this opinion in the lead of the article. As I said; the lead should be factual. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot summary length

The plot summary was rightly tagged for excessive length; I've trimmed it as best I can, but it's still fairly long. However, due to the extremely fast pace of the movie and how many important events are crammed into two hours, there is virtually no way to reduce the plot length any further so I think we should consider it acceptable in its current form. Some guy (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. What you did is a big improvement. However, there's always a way to reduce plot length, it's just a matter of reassessing what's most important to the story and tighter summarising. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"During drinks and kissing..."

In the 4th paragraph in the plot section - is there any reason to be coy about it? "Genital Kissing," maybe; they were each getting blowjobs in adjacent bathroom stalls. I'm going to pare it down to just 'drinks,' but if anyone sees a reason to do otherwise, discuss. - matt lohkamp 06:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot is horrible

I think the Plot section focuses too much on stuff in the movie that doesn't matter, and not enough on important events. For example, how is there so much writing the "Christy fire" scene, but not enough details on the scene where Eduardo announces he is suing, which was in my opinion the pivotal scene of the movie. The Plot needs to be rewritten.--Jerzey jon (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the plot section is bad. But it'll settle down once fewer editors are coming by to add irrelevant plot detail. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The plot should look something like this----

"The film opens with Mark Zuckerberg and his girlfriend, Erica Albright, having drinks at a Cambridge bar. During a rapid fire conversation about his desire to join an exclusive Final Club at Harvard University, Mark manages to unintentionally insult Erica several times, including saying that if he gets into a Final Club, he'll introduce her to people she wouldn't normally be able to meet. Erica announces that she is breaking up with Mark saying that dating him is exhausting. She predicts that he will go on to great success but adds that he will be wrong when he thinks that women don't like him because he is a nerd, rather that they don't like him because he is an "asshole".

Mark, heart broken, hurries back to his dorm room where he begins drinking and posting unflattering comments about Erica on his Livejournal account. Based on an offhand comment by one of his roommates he gets the idea to create a web site which rates the attractiveness of female Harvard undergraduates. Since Harvard lacks a unified database of student names and pictures, Mark hacks into the databases of various residence halls and downloads the pictures. Using an algorithm supplied by his best friend Eduardo Saverin, Mark creates a page called "Face Mash" where people are asked to vote on which of two women are more physically attractive. Cut scenes show the site quickly becoming highly popular among the male community at Harvard and scandalous among the female community, including attendees at a raunchy party at one of the Final Clubs. By four a.m. that night, the "Face Mash" site is getting thousands of hits an hour and ends up crashing the Harvard web servers. As a result Zuckerberg is punished with six months of academic probation and becomes vilified among most of Harvard's female community. However, the popularity of "Face Mash" and the the fact that he created it in one night, while drunk, brings him to the attention of Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, identical twins and members of Harvard's rowing team, and Divya Narendra their business partner. The three explain to Zuckerberg that they are looking for a programmer to help bring to life their idea for a new web site ConnectU. They explain to Zuckerberg the premise of the site and insist that it will be an opportunity for him to redeem his good name following the "Face Mash" scandal, he agrees to help them with the site.

Soon afterwards, Mark approaches Eduardo, announcing that he has an idea for what he calls "The Facebook", an online social networking tool where people can put personal information, the site will be exclusive to those with a harvard.edu email account and social connections will be made through invitation only. Eduardo agrees to help Mark, giving a thousand dollars to help start the site.

Zuckerberg dodges the attentions of the Winklevoss twins and Divya Narendra while he spends weeks writing the programming for the original Facebook. As Zuckerberg repeatedly cancels meetings and refuses to respond to their attempts to contact him, the three investors become more concerned about what he is doing. Zuckerberg and Saverin eventually launch Facebook, by distributing the link to Saverin's connections at the Phoenix. The site quickly disseminates throughout the student body and becomes very popular. Divya Narendra learns about The Facebook and informs the Winklevoss twins that he thinks Zuckerberg stole their idea. This impression is strengthened when they read an interview Zuckerberg gives to the campus newspaper, the Harvard Crimson where he states that part of his motivation for making the new site is to atone for his wrongdoing in the "Face Mash" incident. This is precisely how the Winklevoss twins had presented their business opportunity to him and they take the statement as a deliberate attempt to rub their noses in Mark's theft of their idea. Cameron and Divya argue for suing Zuckerberg for intellectual property theft, but Tyler insists that they are "gentlemen of Harvard" and that they instead begin by sending a "cease and desist" letter.

At a lecture by Bill Gates, Eduardo and Mark meet the attractive young Harvard University female student, Christy Lee and her best friend Alice, who are impressed to meet the creators of Facebook and ask to have drinks with them. The four of them go out for drinks later that night. Mark later spots Erica and tells her that he founded Facebook, and he wants to speak with her in private, however she is not impressed, and refuses and berates Mark for posting unflattering and sexist comments about her on the internet. Upset that he wasn't able to impress Erica, Mark announces that the site must expand. Christy, Mark and Eduardo then return to Mark's room where they outline the structure of the company and their plan for moving forward, including expanding to Yale and Columbia. Eduardo suggests that they also expand Facebook to include Stanford University in Palo Alto, California in order to attract the attention of Silicon Valley venture capitalists.

As Facebook continues to grow in popularity, the Winklevoss twins and Divya Narendra become more angry at seeing what they believe is their idea advance without them. However, Tyler still refuses to go along with the idea of a lawsuit.

Through Christy, who is now Eduardo's girlfriend, Eduardo and Mark arrange a meeting with Napster founder Sean Parker. Eduardo is skeptical of Parker, noting the man's problematic personal history and his troubled history with the companies he has been involved in. Mark, however, is charmed, as Parker presents a vision of Facebook which largely agrees with Mark's own expansive vision. Parker also suggests dropping the article "the" from the site's title.

While Eduardo stays in New York to try and drum up advertising support, Mark and Dustin Moskovitz, on the suggestion of Sean Parker, move the company's base of operation to Palo Alto. Using money provided by Eduardo, they rent a house which, unknown to them, is right across the street from one rented by a girlfriend of Sean Parker's. While out celebrating, Parker encourages Mark to dream big and Mark eventually invites Parker to move into the house with them. When Eduardo visits from New York, he is dismayed to discover that Sean Parker is living at the house and is making business decisions for Facebook. After a falling out with Mark, Eduardo freezes the bank account which he had set up for the company and returns to New York. Later, as Eduardo extinguishes a fire Christy has caused, he receives a call from Mark castigating him for freezing the company's funds, thereby jeopardizing the whole company. Mark also informs him that they have secured money from an angel investor named Peter Thiel and that Eduardo will have to fly out to California to sign papers.

While rowing in a competition in England, the Winklevoss twins learn Facebook has now expanded to universities in the United Kingdom. Further outraged, they decide to sue Zuckerberg.

Traveling to the new headquarters of Facebook, Eduardo signs papers outlining the new corporate structure of Facebook, including reduced shares for him and Mark and single digit share percentages for Sean Parker, Dustin Moskovitz, and Peter Thiel. Some time later, as Facebook is about to reach its one millionth subscriber, Eduardo learns that Mark and Sean have cheated him. A new stock issue is made and Eduardo's share of the company drops from around a third to less than 1%. Furious, Eduardo conforms Mark, announcing that he plans to sue him for all he has, and departs. After Eduardo takes off, Sean and Mark converse about celebrating the one millionth subscriber milestone, with Sean saying that he'll introduce Mark to girls that he wouldn't normally be able to meet, which insults Mark.

At a party to celebrate the one millionth subscriber milestone, Sean Parker and several Facebook interns get ready to snort cocaine, and presumably have sex. However, the police arrive at the raucous party after responding to a noise complaint. As the party is broken up the police discover the cocaine and arrest Parker and the interns, forcing Mark to fire Parker. Although not said, it is assumed that Mark conspired to get rid of Parker, after Parker's insult.

The film ends with, Mark sitting in a conference room at his lawyer's office, where he has been present for depositions in the two lawsuits which Eduardo and the Winklevoss twins have brought against him. A junior lawyer for the firm informs him that they will be settling with Saverin, since the more sordid details of Facebook's founding will make Mark unsympathetic to a jury trial. She then informs Mark that he isn't an "asshole", he just wants to be one, reminding him of Erica Albright. As she leaves, Mark sends Erica a friend request on Facebook. He sits there, refreshing the page every so often, waiting for her to respond."

Yes, it's a bit long. The Social Network was a complex movie. There were so much to be told from that movie. Shorten if you want, but I think this best tells the plot. It emphasizes pivotal scenes (like Edurado's departure, the ending, the beginning, and the second Erica encounter), without adding unnecessary details about things that didn't move the story along (like the whole "Christy going crazy" scene, with didn't advance the story at all. It just provided comic relief).

Also, you HAVE to include Erica's calling of Mark an "asshole", as well as the junior lawyer assuring Mark that he isn't an "asshole". That is a major theme in the movie. It must be included in the plot. Same goes for Mark telling Erica he'll introduce her to people she wouldn't normally be able to meet, as well as Parker telling Mark the same thing later. That's also key.--Jerzey jon (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Genre

Is this really a comedy-drama? It's funny in places, yes. So is everything else that Aaron Sorkin writes, but that doesn't mean the word comedy applies to all of them. The Winklevoss twins have at least four scenes about or tied to rowing, but it's not a sports movie. A drama that contains some witty people is still a drama. 98.226.156.238 (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I did a search engine test, and based on the results, I agree that the film is best defined as a drama. I've made the change. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

speed of film dialogue

http://www.spot.ph/featured/46767/movie-review-emthe-social-networkem - second to last paragraph - a suitable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.3.251 (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Plot revisions

Here is an explanation of the copy edits I have performed on the plot section, to tighten it up and improve something that is already too long.

• "student Mark Zuckerberg gets the idea" - ugly phrasing. He has an idea, not gets
• "crashes" - networks don't crash like this. They may grind to a halt though. "Brings down" is not perfect but more accurate.
• "who has recently been invited to pledge the Phoenix S-K final club" - the matter of Eduardo's entry into the club and its effects on Mark is not expanded on later, so little point to mentioning it here. Removed this and added the fact he had contacts in the club later.
• "tool" - What is it, a screw driver? Replaced by clear and plainer "website"
• "people share certain information without the invasion of privacy." This isn't even grammatical.
• "When Divya learns about the launch of Thefacebook, he tells the Winklevoss" - the method and order by which they learn this is irrelevant
• "but Tyler votes against it" - I saw no "vote". I saw a discussion. Removed and made clearer what Tyler meant to do.
• "while simultaneously stalling on their website" - this is a very important part of their law suit. Inserted.
• "student Christy Lee introduces herself and her best friend Alice to Eduardo and Mark" - what importance is any of this to the overall plot?
• "who is not aware of The Facebook's existence" - the important bit of this is that Albright was not aware of it because she wasn't at Harvard. That is presented as being Mark's main impetuous for expansion and a vital part of the plot. Added that.
• "initially Yale and Columbia, and Stanford as well" - does it really matter which? Removed.
• "At Parker's suggestion Mark and Dustin Moskovitz move the company's base of operation to Palo Alto" - crucial point, this is the first evidence of Parker's influence over Mark and distancing from Eduardo.
• "advertising support" - what does this even mean? Explained what Eduardo was doing in New York.
• "the bank account which he had set up for the company" - or, to put far more succinctly, "the company's bank account".
• "Christy and Eduardo get into an argument regarding his Facebook profile, which still lists him as "single"" - how is this, and Eduardo's troubles with Christy, significant to the plot as a whole?
• "has expanded to Oxford, Cambridge and LSE" - again, does it matter which exactly?
• "the deal he signed with Parker's investors allows them to dilute his share of the company from a third to less than one tenth of one percent, while maintaining the ownership percentage of all other parties." - this explains the key point of Eduardo's legal case. Left out it is unclear what he has to complain about and how it was done.
• "At a party to celebrate the one millionth member of Facebook, Sean and several Facebook interns are arrested for possession of cocaine." - So? Without any context it isn't clear why this is significant. Added some.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The direct link which introduces Parker (and brings the rise of the film's most prominent lawsuit overall, the one Eduardo insinuates) is Lee, the troubled relationship between the lead male (shared with Zuckberg) character and Lee is prominent to the character arc of Saverin. The character functions as the link which brings the trouble (moral of the story, plot, overall prominent themes), since through her - Parker meets Zuckerberg. The introduction of Lee is prominent due to the fact through her Parker is introduced. I made sure the old re-edited edition suits your comments on the lack of succinctness.--Lovetimes9 17:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• The method by which Zuckerberg is introduced to Parker is really not that important. How does Lee know Parker? Who exactly is Lee that she has these connections? Bringing Lee into the picture just raises more questions than answers, and they are really side issues. All that is significant for a summary is that Zuckerberg and Saverin become known about campus, and through a mutual acquaintance, are introduced to Parker.
• Why is sex in the toilets important to the plot summary? I understand why it is in the plot, it adds depths and makes real their transformation from nerd to trophy boyfriend. But what significance is there to the overall story that can't be summarised as "they become campus celebrities"?
• What is Severin doing "for advertising support"?? This bit is completely uninformative. Is he seeking advertising? Providing it? Studying it?
• "Mark moves the company's base of operation to Palo Alto after Parker suggests moving the company's base of operation to Palo Alto." - Tell me again, where are they moving to exactly? Palo Alto perhaps?
• "and returns to New York. Upon returning to New York" Will the reader be confused about where Saverin is? New York maybe?
• Why are Saverin's arguments with Lee important? Why do we need all the details about scarf burning?
• Lee is not attempting to set fire to his room. That would make her a arsonist. She is burning the scarf in a metal bin. Reckless maybe, but not arson.
• Saverin's reasons for ending the relationship are not simply because of this incident. The incident is indicative of her nature, that's why it's in the plot.
• "As a result of Christy's pyromaniac tendency, Eduardo ends his romantic relationship with Christy." - I think it can be taken as read that he's not ending his relationship with anyone else. One mention of Christy does the job.
• "Mark reveals they have secured money from an angel investor." - This totally misses the important fact that this is achieved through Parker's contacts.
• "they decide to sue. Eduardo then" This is a non sequitur. Eduardro's actions do not follow on from those of the Winklevoss. They are entirely separate.
• "As a result while confronting Mark" - The suing is a result of what? The stock dilution or the confrontation? This is just badly phrased. I think its important to remind the reader at this point that they started out best friends. This is a central point (and irony) of the film; business alienating friendships.
• How can you simultaneously argue that Parker's introduction "brings the trouble (moral of the story, plot, overall prominent themes)" and then argue that Parker's final fall from grace is an irrelevant to the plot? It's where Parker exits the story. It's the point that Zuckerberg realises that Saverin was right and he is a liability. It explains why, as the film mentions at the end, Parker's influence and share percentage went no further. That's why the incident is in the plot at all.

There's simply too many details in here that may be useful to the film's plot, are really not essential to be in a summary. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal Inferences with the adaptation

Can someone explain how a film about a recent historical event, with actual people can also be fictionalised? Given that the film clearly claims to portray actual characters (it is, at face-value, the "true story" of facebook"), and yet it departs from historicity, isn't that libellous? Given how litigious the USA is, and given the lack of lawsuits, can we infer that the film is more truthful than one might think? (i.e. that the story hasn't been "improved" for cinema). Or is the law on defamation sufficiently different in the USA than in Europe? An explanation would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Art. BOVINEBOY2008 14:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Virtually all the people depicted under their real names in the Social Network are public figures. If they were to sue the movie's producers, they would have to prove actual malice, which is extremely difficult. Truth is a complete defense to defamation in the United States, which means that the defendants would exercise their right to discovery in support of that defense (i.e. more probing depositions). Finally, a defendant would almost certainly exercise his constitutional right to a jury trial. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot tidy

I've removed again a few things in the plot summary (which is always getting superfluous information added).

• "and subsequently sets fire to a scarf" - what value does the word "subsequently" add to this sentence? The word suggests that the events do not follow on directly from one another, which is exactly what they do.
• "he has given to her as a gift" - so he gave her a scarf as a gift, as opposed to...? A loan? A swap?
• "As a result of Christy's arson attempt" - two problems with this. Firstly, there is nothing to suggest that Christy was attempting arson. It is not an attempt to destroy the building and I think the person(s) adding it don't appreciate fully what the word means. Secondly, nowhere is it suggested that this is the primary reason for Eduardo ending the relationship. The episode is merely indicative of Christy's jealousy and temper, which probably had far more to do with their relationship ending.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Lessig section

Why is an extended non sequitur rant from Lawrence Lessig on intellectual property included in the "reaction from the principals" section? Does Lessig appear in the movie? If not (and I don't think he does), he's not a "principal." The closest he comes is being a Harvard professor, an honor shared with hundreds of other people who aren't portrayed in the film.

Perhaps something of Lessig's review deserves to be in the article, but probably not a huge extended quote, and certainly not one in a section on the reactions of people portrayed in the movie.71.192.161.233 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Finding commentaries & in-depth reviews of movies has always been one of Wikipedia's weaknesses, so having something on Lessig's commentary is desirable. Yet you have a point: this appears to be something of a coat rack, an attempt to slip a partisan POV into this article under the guise of presenting something else. I'm not certain what to do about this without further thought. -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(I did look at a March 2011 version of the article before making this comment, the changes to Lessig's quote have been minimal overall, if any) Perhaps the section should be merged with 'Reception', but Lessig's, as a well-known professor of law, review of the movie is certainly worthy of keeping in the article. It's also not really partisan, nor a rant. It does have a clear motive, but that doesn't make it biased towards one side or another. --Padenton (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 lists

The section of 75 "top 10 list" appearences is really a little much. Most of the critics aren't notable by themselves and even some of their sources aren't. Couple that with the multiple appearences of some outlets, such as MSN Movies having 9 different entries on the list. It needs trimmed down. Any suggestions on criteria? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the list is a little excessive. Maybe we could say that over 70 critics listed the film in their top ten lists, and we could say, these are the critics that identified the film as the best of the best? That would list 19 critics, which is more palpable. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• That would be an improvement. I'd really go for a single line about how it made the top 10 list for "numerous critics including..." then list 3-5 bigger names and be done with it. It's not like it's an actual award or something and the fact that places like MSN Movies has 9 (or more) of these lists tends to indicate they are just run of the mill, "it's the end of the year so we have to do this" things. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• We could condense all the names where this film ranked first into one publication only. For example, we could condense Entertainment Weekly, Los Angeles Times, and MSN Movies. Even if it's one of those "we have to do this" things, it's still noteworthy that this film was ranked first by these people out of all the other critically acclaimed films. I've taken a stab at trimming the list. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think the edit you made is a big improvement. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Expanding plot for event flow

I have tried to cut some minor details and expand the Plot section, to include major aspects of the flow of events, but of course, that adds more text. I am currently counting the total words, but if the length is an issue, then I suggest cutting some other details from the Plot section, to allow more space to emphasize the disagreements between the main characters, and their views about financing Facebook. For example, with Christy's dialogue line ("Facebook me"), perhaps some sentences can be cut to allow more space to emphasize the main events between Zuckerberg, Eduardo Saverin, and Sean Parker. Per WP:FILMPLOT, a complex plot can be longer than 700 words (such as in Pulp Fiction with rewind flashbacks), and this film splices scenes by numerous flashbacks which would justify a longer plot section. Meanwhile, are there any any other plot details that should be cut? -Wikid77 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Given that the film isn't exceptionally long nor exceptionally convoluted (yes it has flashbacks, but they're not particularly disorienting ones) I really wouldn't be inclined to give this film a whole lot of leeway with regards to the plot guidelines. That being said, as long as it's under 1K words I'm not going to make a huge fuss over it either. As far as specifics go...well, I already took a pass at it. Got it under 1K words but wasn't sure what to trim next and, honestly, wasn't invested enough to take another full pass over it yet. Doniago (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• What about looking at it more critically? For example, since the OP mentioned Christy, look at the scene about sex in the bathroom. Why is it there? It has nothing to do with furthering the plot. If it were deleted from the movie, the storyline wouldn't change a bit. Just one example, I'm sure there are more. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point, I've been trying to be rid of this side plot since forever, but it keeps getting put back in. Some editors seem to think that actors getting it on are vital to the overall plot, when it's really just to illustrate the conversion from geekdom to being a target for groupies. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

• Seriously, imagine it this way: If they decided to show it on a plane and cut that scene out, would there be any other part of the movie that you didn't understand? Nope. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take it out I won't say no. :) Or I could probably be persuaded to make another pass through the article entire tomorrow, probably. Doniago (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• You should go look at D-Tox, a straight to DVD stinker that is over 1,800 words now. I deleted some copyvio stuff before, but it's a mess of excess detail. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done 930 now. I left it tagged; your call whether to de-tag or leave it there until it's knocked down further. Doniago (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Very cool. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have trimmed those events, further, and added specifics about Mark's actions and the business decisions. The plot is more complex than some films because it shows an overall pattern of callous attitudes, illegal actions, or betrayal, which I have tried to include, such as:

• Mark informs Erica she is "just from BU".
• He copies student-photo directories to create website "Facemash".
• His webpages contained copyrighted or private photos.
• Sent the twins emails over 6 weeks saying he was still working their website.
• Sean failed to make significant money from Napster and declared bankruptcy.
• Eduardo, as a business major...disagrees...plans to sign corporate-ad sponsors.
• Sean advises drop word "The" and just call it "Facebook" (first mention in plot).
• When backyard "zip line" breaks house chimney, who else but Sean suddenly appears from next door.

I think all of those events are needed to show Mark's actions with Sean towards others, rather than simply say his girlfriend dumped him, etc. I reduced the restroom scene to just "sex" but perhaps replace that part with "went into a stall" and Eduardo remarks they have "groupies". Focus on the major concepts, such as groupies, copyright infringement, betrayal (misleading emails), and then shorten the phrasing while preserving those ideas. This is not a crime story to merely show key evidence, but rather it is an overall pattern of rude actions; hence, requiring a longer text. Remember the section in the film where the lawyer adds 2 simple numbers, and Mark says, "Wait...let me check...okay I got the same answer": that is the attitude which the Plot section should try to portray. -Wikid77 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I know you're acting in good faith, but this addiotnal stuff is mainly trivia. This is supposed to be a synopsis of the plot, not a screen play. Things like the zip line, the "just from BU" etc are really trivia. If we want to know the details of the Facemash etc, that's all in the Zuckerberg article. Again......synopsis, not book. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait, all those plot events add only 10% to the total wording of the plot. By comparison, a small book, such as a novella, contains 5,000 words (5x times larger). The fact that Facemash was based on copying student-photo directories is integral to the plot, as the reason for sanctions by the Harvard staff: a student had created a website based on numerous copyrighted or private photos, which was a major concern (not the fact the network ran slowly). The structure of Facebook, in the film, is to request users to post their own photos, without the copyright issues. For those reasons, 20 words were added to the Plot section, to note the copying and copyright issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That's how it starts. It's "only 10%". That's what the next editor will say too. The question isn't even the number, it's "do we need it"? Much of what is being added is trivial. What was there was a plot summary. What you are adding goes back to "telling a story". You're worrying about making it sound like a story being told and that's not the goal. Even when it was cut down, it was still over the suggested guidelines. Adding "just 10%" is going the wrong direction. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I have reverted these plot additions. Wikid77, unless other editors come forward supporting your view, please either stop adding your information, or find ways to restructure your information or the Plot section at large such that the word-count is not so grossly in violation of guidelines. The guidelines recommend a maximum of 700 words, your additions pushed the word count over 1,000. Currently consensus appears to be that your additions to the Plot are not contributing to the article in a positive manner. Thank you. Doniago (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Information about Elo formulas in Plot section

Anyone feel that [1] this information should be included in the Plot section of the article? If so, why? To my mind this doesn't belong here, and if it is going to be included here then proper citations are needed. Doniago (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, me, but let's make it more readable...

Behind the scenes, we're to believe, an algorithm originally developed to rank chess players, the Elo rating system, is employed to rank these women by their attractiveness. The equations driving the algorithm are shown briefly, written on Zuckerberg's dorm room window. The correct equations are:

Ea = 1/(1 + 10 ^ ((Rb-Ra) / 400) )

Eb = 1/(1 + 10 ^ ((Ra-Rb) / 400) )

Ex is the expected probability that X will win the match. Ea + Eb = 1. Rx is the rating of X, which changes after every match, according to the formula:

Rx = Rx(old) + 32 * ( W – Ex ) where W=1 if X wins and W=0 if X loses.

Everyone starts with an Rx = 1400. - Screenplay for "The Social Network," Sony Pictures, p. 16

Understanding this probabilistic calculation was key to Zuckerberg's creating Facemash, hence Facebook. It's easy to see how Facemash would not have entered Zuckerberg's mind otherwise. This article is the only exposure most viewers of this film will ever have to Elo's equations, on WP. Sources are the article on the Elo system, for correct equations (and reproducibility) and the screenplay for "The Social Network," Sony Pictures, p.16 which equations should be referenced in this article, in the way Zuckerberg used it, but how? I suggested a note. It is an aside, but an important one, and just enough info should be given so anyone with a PC can reproduce it. -72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• It absolutely doen't belong in the plot summary. It's trivia to the nth degree. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Why can't you see that Facemash, hence Facebook, hence "The Social Network" wouldn't exist without it? -72.37.249.60 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Who says I can't see it? Were there no internet, there'd be no Facebook either, yet we don't need to explain how it works for the plot. Had Harvard not been founded, Zukerberg wouldn't have had a databse to hack to form Facemash, yet we don't need a history of Harvard. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The specifics of the formula are not necessary in order to follow the plotline of the film, which is what we're concerned with in the Plot section. See WP:FILMPLOT. If you're this concerned with talking about the formulas, you're welcome to find some reliable sources that talk about their use in the film and write up something appropriate for a different section of the article. Doniago (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• You're correct, but there should be some reference as to the origin of what they wrote so feverishly on the window, and based their first effort upon. Linking to the Elo article should suffice. The Screenplay should be ref'd too. -72.37.249.60 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't even need mentioned. It's not vital to the plot summary at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the film, which is a fictionalised account. This article is not a History of Facebook, so what Zuckerberg did in actual reality is not the point. In the film it is not a feature of the plot (other than "a formula") and it is is not identified, AFAIK, as the "Elo rating system". Mention of it in the plot section is therefore non-essential trivia and original synthesis, expanding on the plot. Beyond that, neither viewer of the film, nor the readers of this article, cares about this level of detail and certainly does not need to see the formula. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The deposition link issue

There has been a back-and-forth thing about this that needs to be discussed---whether to expressly link to Deposition (law). The reason that link is necessary is because the vast majority of countries do not use depositions. The only countries in which lawyers regularly take depositions are the United States and Canada. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

There's a back and forth on this? Why not link the word? It doesn't seem to be a common enough word that readers should necessarily be expected to know what it means, and it's just one word in any case. DonIago (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Done! jxm (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)