Archibald Nixon
anti-life coach
Making the call here & now: Oscar winner for Best Picture, February 2011.
More later --need to process it.
More later --need to process it.
The Social Network
- Thread starter Archibald Nixon
- Start date
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
The oldes in the Academy won't vote for it, or understand it when they watch the screener.
Plus the movie is only selling well in major cities. "Middle America" is staying home.
Plus the movie is only selling well in major cities. "Middle America" is staying home.
Archibald Nixon
anti-life coach
Bah! "Middle America" can create an upswelling of favor, but its the Hollywood bourgeoisie that decide the Oscars (Crash? Gladiator? American Beauty? Forrest Gump?)
Besides, Eggs, don't you know it's the JEWS that run these things? And this movie is positively JEWTASTIC! :kev:
Besides, Eggs, don't you know it's the JEWS that run these things? And this movie is positively JEWTASTIC! :kev:
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
I'm just reporting what I read:
Academy Likes 'Social Network,' But -- 'Too Many A—holes' to Win?
Academy Voters React To 'Social Network
-----------------
And the nerderati are throwing it right back in old Hollywood's schnozz:
‘Social Network’ New Media Backlash: Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It
Academy Likes 'Social Network,' But -- 'Too Many A—holes' to Win?
Academy Voters React To 'Social Network
-----------------
And the nerderati are throwing it right back in old Hollywood's schnozz:
‘Social Network’ New Media Backlash: Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It
Archibald Nixon
anti-life coach
Late getting back to this --apologies.
Nothing in there that really sways my OP conviction, but some interesting takes on what the film was actually about --or should have been about. My knee-jerk reaction to statements like
...A movie that focused on the actual workings of Facebook? Righteous! Pay twelve bucks and watch on the big screen in digital surround sound, as some unknown asshole continually updates their page and statuszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And yet, they’ve got a point: how does a 2-hour movie show what goes through the facebook user's head as they experience…whatever the hell it is they experience, that keeps bringing them back and spreading the word? Just how do you make a film about an Internet phenomenon?
Then there’s this one, which caught my eye yesterday on the Google News page:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-the-social-network
Brings up an interesting point (that the story should have focused more on the freedoms currently in place on the Internet, which allowed a 19-year-old genius to shepherd an idea from inception to near-global cultural saturation in six years,) one which I largely agree with. But goddamn, this article is so constipated, so peppered with verbal turds like "architected" and "worked ferociously hard" (those two in the first paragraph alone,) and patently idiotic statements like "It’s not that he’s a socially clumsy (relative to the Harvard elite) boy genius. Every one of them is." that finding said point feels like a sprint through a kennel pen littered with fresh steamers. Coming from The New Republic, and written by Lawrence Lessig --someone for whom I would normally have a ton of admiration for-- this is especially disenheartening.
Irony Sidebar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig#Media_references
Many point out that Sorkin/Fincher missed the whole boat on the virtual world and thus, failed to translate the "secret ingredient” of Facebook to the screen –fair cop, possibly. I’m never on Facebook so I don’t really see what’s missing. But I can at least see the inherent difficulties –maybe even impossibilities— of one medium trying to successfully translate the magic of another. How many film versions of great novels truly work, for instance? What was that famous quote, that ‘writing about art (or music) is like dancing about architecture’?
Doesn’t bode well for any future cinematic blockbuster about TK, does it? But you never know. Some modern-day-D.W. Griffith might come along and do for cyberspace what the original did for telling stories on the big screen.
Here’s one of the more sober positive reviews:
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/The-Social-Network.html
I hadn’t considered the Citizen Kane angle –major differences abound, of course, but interesting all the same.
Nothing in there that really sways my OP conviction, but some interesting takes on what the film was actually about --or should have been about. My knee-jerk reaction to statements like
...A movie that focused on the actual workings of Facebook? Righteous! Pay twelve bucks and watch on the big screen in digital surround sound, as some unknown asshole continually updates their page and statuszzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
And yet, they’ve got a point: how does a 2-hour movie show what goes through the facebook user's head as they experience…whatever the hell it is they experience, that keeps bringing them back and spreading the word? Just how do you make a film about an Internet phenomenon?
Then there’s this one, which caught my eye yesterday on the Google News page:
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-the-social-network
Brings up an interesting point (that the story should have focused more on the freedoms currently in place on the Internet, which allowed a 19-year-old genius to shepherd an idea from inception to near-global cultural saturation in six years,) one which I largely agree with. But goddamn, this article is so constipated, so peppered with verbal turds like "architected" and "worked ferociously hard" (those two in the first paragraph alone,) and patently idiotic statements like "It’s not that he’s a socially clumsy (relative to the Harvard elite) boy genius. Every one of them is." that finding said point feels like a sprint through a kennel pen littered with fresh steamers. Coming from The New Republic, and written by Lawrence Lessig --someone for whom I would normally have a ton of admiration for-- this is especially disenheartening.
Irony Sidebar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig#Media_references
Many point out that Sorkin/Fincher missed the whole boat on the virtual world and thus, failed to translate the "secret ingredient” of Facebook to the screen –fair cop, possibly. I’m never on Facebook so I don’t really see what’s missing. But I can at least see the inherent difficulties –maybe even impossibilities— of one medium trying to successfully translate the magic of another. How many film versions of great novels truly work, for instance? What was that famous quote, that ‘writing about art (or music) is like dancing about architecture’?
Doesn’t bode well for any future cinematic blockbuster about TK, does it? But you never know. Some modern-day-D.W. Griffith might come along and do for cyberspace what the original did for telling stories on the big screen.
Here’s one of the more sober positive reviews:
http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/screen/reviews/The-Social-Network.html
I hadn’t considered the Citizen Kane angle –major differences abound, of course, but interesting all the same.
Mirah
I love you
Saw it tonight. Not so sure.
Mirah
I love you
Saw it again.
Perhaps I was wrong.
First time around I missed the first 5 minutes. (or the first major scene)
Also, this time I had just had an orgasm. So perhaps Harry Potter would have looked fascinating too.