How accurate was The Social Network

Submitted by dothingsunevercould t3_125s0zc in movies

My question is how objective the telling of the events are.

The only reason I ask is because based on that film--there's no way anyone could come away with any opinion other than Zuckerberg 1000000% stole Facebook from the Winklevi twins.

Is there a more accurate source material?

I can't imagine MZ being too pleased with that montage of him repeatedly ducking the Winklevi. His defense of "I did not use your code" to me is the biggest cop out ever.

Honestly whatever settlement the WV got out of that, and I'm sure it was an exorbitant amount, was not still nearly enough.

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

DoYouLikeHueyLewi5 t1_je5t897 wrote

Even if you took the movie as 100% fact (which it’s not), I completely disagree that you could say Zuckerberg stole Facebook. In the movie the Winklevi twins had an idea to make a Facebook, something that already existed on college campuses (Harvard included) and on MySpace. Their big idea was to make it exclusive. Not only did Mark and his roommates program the whole thing, the idea that drove Facebook initially was taking the college experience and putting it online. What are your friends doing and who are they dating. It was like opening a door to every other college campus, which was huge especially in the Northeast where you can hit 20 colleges within an hours drive. I think Zuck in the movie said it best: “If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you would’ve invented Facebook”.

44

TheWorstYear t1_je6t01h wrote

That's not legally how it works. Mark agreed to a contract where he would develop the website, took a look at the work & code already developed towards the site, & then went & made his own based off of what he saw. That's textbook theft.

11

DoYouLikeHueyLewi5 t1_je774r9 wrote

Which is why he paid a massive settlement. I never said what he did was right (it wasn’t) or ethical (it wasn’t), but Mark made it happen and that’s all that really matters.

1

TheWorstYear t1_je7cqye wrote

No it isn't.

6

DoYouLikeHueyLewi5 t1_je7fjha wrote

Lmao okay

−2

DynamicPJQ t1_je7rung wrote

You’re not thinking about this from a legal perspective whatsoever

2

HowIsYourBreathing t1_je5kwd0 wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Network#Historical_accuracy

>Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz called the film a "dramatization of history ... it is interesting to see my past rewritten in a way that emphasizes things that didn't matter, (like the Winklevosses, who I've still never even met and had no part in the work we did to create the site over the past 6 years) and leaves out things that really did

>Speaking to an audience at Stanford University, Zuckerberg said that instead of making Facebook to "get girls", he made it because he enjoyed "building things".[90] He added that the film accurately depicted his wardrobe, saying, "It's interesting the stuff that they focused on getting right—like every single shirt and fleece they had in that movie is actually a shirt or fleece that I own."[90]

35

100percentkneegrow t1_je5thtv wrote

Mark's said he was with his now wife for most when the movie took place. I love TSN but one thing I'm always cynical on is how they frame it around a girl. It just feels so... Hollywood, like trying to make it into a movie.

29

bob1689321 t1_je66xpi wrote

That annoyed me. They tried to package the whole story as "lonely man does all this but still didn't get the girl" because that's something recognisable to Hollywood but it has no truth to it. The woman in the film doesn't even exist.

10

lavabears t1_je6k5s7 wrote

Spielberg did the same thing in his own recent biopic. There was never any girl in real life. It’s weird he would write and direct that.

5

bob1689321 t1_je6mivg wrote

At least his is still a fictional story at the end of the day so it's not as bad. I guess every screenwriter writes the high school they wish they had and not the one they got lol.

3

BeginningAppeal8599 t1_je6xkna wrote

Because following real life stories exactly without dramatization and timeline changes won't sell a film.

Even documentaries do a lot of manipulation.

1

Op3rat0rr t1_je6aovn wrote

Man that’s pretty cringe. Fantastic movie though

3

HowIsYourBreathing t1_je5v0i1 wrote

Yeah the framing of the story is dishonest from the beginning. It's a work of fiction that includes some real people and events. The writer even said (on the Wiki article):

>"What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy's sake"

1

dogsonbubnutt t1_je8cysy wrote

> It just feels so... Hollywood, like trying to make it into a movie.

tbh it feels very sorkin, specifically. like i can picture him typing THE END in his word doc and then shaking his head and going "all that... for a girl"

1

dalibor_gursky t1_je5lsg9 wrote

>there's no way anyone could come away with any opinion other than Zuckerberg 1000000% stole Facebook from the Winklevi twins

Since I did not come away with that opinion, "no way" and "100000%" is hyperbole here. I agree with the head of Harvard in that film. Get over it. Make a website.

29

occasional_cynic t1_je6ka7a wrote

> head of Harvard

Fun fact. He did not deny acting like what was portrayed in that scene when interviewed.

5

Dalekdude t1_je63jq5 wrote

Rashida Jones' character at the end puts it best, something along the lines of like "when I hear emotional testimony I assume 50% of it is bullshit". I think that applies to the film well

27

new_wellness_center t1_je6gmn1 wrote

Great line. If people know too much about the real story, or if they know too much about the industry, they might roll their eyes at the melodrama of it all ... Oh well, there are some people who won't be able to enjoy this movie. For me, it's a wonderful piece of entertainment, and I find it very moving. The fact that it is at least partially based in truth does make it more impactful, but I would rather enjoy the fiction of this movie than obsess over historical liberties.

5

GypsyDishwasher t1_je8g6y2 wrote

"When there's emotional testimony, I assume that 85% of it is exaggeration."

"And the other 15?"

"Perjury. Creation myths need a devil."

4

SherKhanMD t1_je5raek wrote

Just popped in to say its one of the greatest movies ever.

7

bugxbuster t1_je662ph wrote

Yeah I just rewatched it a couple weeks ago. It truly is a well made film. Just front to back precision into craft. It’s a movie that could be a stage play and function fine, but is just constant expensive and overengineered camerawork. They put so much effort into the movie and all of it came together like a masterclass in filmmaking. You could study any individual aspect in it, from performances, to color grading, music, cgi, writing, anything about it, and you can gain insight from it to be a better filmmaker yourself if you tried. Fincher is fantastic at being like that, though. He just rules.

6

Mochman21 t1_je6g0ke wrote

I have nothing to add but I just had to say this is exactly what I love so much about the movie. Perfect summary.

2

Select_Action_6065 t1_je6hm5r wrote

I actually thought the movie made a pretty good case that he didn’t steal the idea.

“They had an idea, I had a better one.

Look, a guy who builds a nice chair doesn't owe money to everyone who has ever built a chair, okay?”

7

apf6 t1_je5uh48 wrote

In general Sorkin dramas are not very historically accurate. I love the guy but he is known to embellish massively.

But we know for sure The Social Network (2009) is not really accurate because of information that came out later. In 2012, Mark's AOL instant message history was leaked. Mark flat out says that he plans to steal the idea from the Winklevosses and screw them over. He also says a lot of stuff that confirms he's a shitty person. Looking back now you could argue that the Winklevosses were the good guys all along.

6

TheWorstYear t1_je70tyn wrote

Zuckerberg was like every moron on 4chan. Not surprising. Also kind of goes along with the main narrative beats of the film. Cutting out the fluff, the film gave the impression that the Eduardo/Mark rift stemmed from Eduardo putting in startup funds, making himself the CFO, & then not doing anything productive past that. Mark resented that Eduardo had any control despite not involved in actually building the site, he didn't want Eduardo to have anymore input, & Mark stopped informing Eduardo of potential investments and business decisions.
Though it seems like Mark & Eduardo were only equatences in a class, & not actually friends. Which the movie really inflated.

0

futanari_kaisa t1_je68as9 wrote

Have we ever found out why Zuckerberg diluted Saverin's shares so harshly and left everyone else basically untouched?

6

occasional_cynic t1_je6kl88 wrote

Facebook needed VC funding to expand. Saverin (who was still in New York while Zuck moved the HQ to SF) was being obstinate and blocking it. The agreement allowed them to go around Saverin and get that funding.

3

Mainlandempire t1_je5weup wrote

He did steal given he had to pay them off but the movie was largely fiction

5

Arfguy t1_je7f523 wrote

I personally look at it as pure fiction. I can't say what I felt at the time, but speaking in the here and now: it does not inform my opinions on Zuckerberg.

The movie is a masterpiece, IMO. The pacing is absolutely breakneck and impeccable, the acting is downright fantastic, the music is just immensely intoxicating and the story is captivating and compelling.

If I had to pick a movie that I deem to be perfect, it would be The Social Network. I just wouldn't consider it to be an accurate telling of the real-life events. While I am certain some, if not a lot, of what happened in the movie may have happened in real life, I would rather watch a documentary for the most accurate accounts of real-life events. Everything else...is dramatization for maximum engagement.

3

zomsucks t1_je5yjzx wrote

Does the movie NEED to be accurate to make it a great movie? I never thought it needed to be, the storytelling, cinematography, score, acting, etc. makes it great. I enjoyed all the characters, Garfield losing his mind over fish eating other fish, Eisenberg dialogue about standing on anothers shoulders, etc. Great stuff.

The creators also made it that way to be more appealing to a general audience.

2

dothingsunevercould OP t1_je62yko wrote

Nope the film was fantastic regardless of the stretching of the truth. Not really the point of my post. Which was that Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook.

5

Mindofmierda90 t1_je62llp wrote

The real Zuckerberg is about 1/100th as charismatic and witty as Sorkin made him out to be.

2

sulaymanf t1_je6l09v wrote

It’s pretty close adaptation to the book. The book maybe draws a little heavily from the Winklevoss twins and Saverin narrations, as I suppose Zuckerberg didn’t cooperate as much.

2

bravetailor t1_je5xem7 wrote

I love David Fincher but I would rate TSN further down on his resume than his others. Still a very good movie, well executed, but accurate? Naw, there's a lot of the Sorkin exaggeration in it. The biggest sticking point is the lack of any Priscilla that I can recall, who has been basically with Mark through most of his adult life and initial rise.

1

LondonDown t1_je6jk5y wrote

TIL that Kevin Spacey was an executive producer on the Social Network

1

gorpee t1_je6nlzm wrote

I believe he had just worked with Fincher on House of Cards so he probably got looped in that way.

1

amerijohn t1_je7zap7 wrote

Sorkin didn't research Zuck, who's actually a decent dude if not Mr. Charm.

1

FreeofCruelty t1_jed29pp wrote

Hi! This is Mark Zuckerberg. It was pretty damn accurate!

1

mechaiineramen t1_je8ptof wrote

Nobody knows truly. There WAS a girl Rooney Maras character was based on, and his blog posts were verbatim in the film but with her name changed. You can dig them up online. And then the time line of the actual shit happening in the company is fact you can look up. But the interpersonal shit is summized well by Rashida Jones at the end. And we will never know.

0

Top_Ok t1_je5kgub wrote

It's a complete work of fiction the whole ex girlfriend he has doesn't even exist in real life. And whatever happened between those guys is something only they know.

−3

The-Go-Kid t1_je5mkxw wrote

It's not a complete work at all. It's fiction wrapped around some bones of truth. Many of the characters exist, many of the events happened.

13