The Social Network

[SamSchmidt]

So I've watched just about every movie in existence, cept random old-school ones, so while browsing Netflix and Prime I came across The Social Network on Stars. Somehow I had never seen it yet. Got some pressing questions/thoughts.

1. How much of this is made up? I remember reading some where Zuck said it was 85% inaccurate but could not find an interview on it.

2. Really....who wouldn't have their lawyers look over documents about re-evaluation of stock options. C'mon son.

3. HOW did Mark screw Eduardo out of his shares? That scene was not entirely clear to me. I know they diluted them somehow, but how exactly?

 

[Cor van Vooren]

So I've watched just about every movie in existence, cept random old-school ones, so while browsing Netflix and Prime I came across The Social Network on Stars. Somehow I had never seen it yet. Got some pressing questions/thoughts.

1. How much of this is made up? I remember reading some where Zuck said it was 85% inaccurate but could not find an interview on it.

2. Really....who wouldn't have their lawyers look over documents about re-evaluation of stock options. C'mon son.

3. HOW did Mark screw Eduardo out of his shares? That scene was not entirely clear to me. I know they diluted them somehow, but how exactly?

1. Someone once said that it's 40% accurate

2. Plot device I guess

3. Refer to #2

 

[odog]

I like David Fincher, but didn’t give a shit about that movie. Douchebag rich guy makes money? And I care because?

 

[ufcfan4]

Zuck said something like if they wanted to make an accurate film, it would have been two hours of showing people writing code lol.

Who knows how true to life it really is but we def know Zuck has incentive to say it wasn’t like that considering it doesn’t paint the nicest picture of him to say the least.

My assumption is there’s a lot of artistic license with some degree of accuracy.

 

[turna]

I don't think you'll ever be able to know how much of it is true, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the arrogance and aspy element of MZ was fairly well portrayed lol.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Considering how he fumbled through the Congressional hearings I doubt he manhandled all those lawyers like they showed in the movie.

 

[Clippy]

Accurate or not I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie - something about it really interested me

 

[blitzk]

Its a fun movie with a great score by Nine Inch Nails.

 

[ufcfan4]

Accurate or not I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie - something about it really interested me

Great movie. Great cast.

It’s typically awesome Fincher style plus top notch performances from Eisenberg, Garfield, Hammer, Timberlake, Minghella (some his lines and exchanges with both the Winklevoss twins and MZ are great- “I can’t wait to stand over your shoulder and watch you write us a check.”), etc

Plus awesome Sorkin screenplay/dialogue. “It doesn’t take a team of forensic lawyers to get to the bottom of this. If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you’d have invented Facebook”

I think it probably should have won best picture over The King’s Speech. That was a stacked movie year in general though.

 

[SamSchmidt]

I still don't get how they screwed his friend over asides from the whole dilute his shares thing....they told him what to placate him? How did this work technically?

 

[Hitman81]

I like the movie. But you can tell Eisenbeirg is completely overacting and turning Zuckerberg into some type of character that's he's not. Just watch his interviews.

 

[MMA since 1993]

Jesse eisenberg is just not a likeable actor. It was a chore watching this movie.

 

[BisexualMMA]

I still don't get how they screwed his friend over asides from the whole dilute his shares thing....they told him what to placate him? How did this work technically?

They issued him a class of shares that was lower in the pecking order than the ones issued to Zuckerberg and Justin Timberlake, if I remember correctly. Companies can issue securities that have different terms; not all are necessarily created equal.

 

[SamSchmidt]

They issued him a class of shares that was lower in the pecking order than the ones issued to Zuckerberg and Justin Timberlake, if I remember correctly. Companies can issue securities that have different terms; not all are necessarily created equal.

Ahhhhhh. Ok they gave him class Bs for the now defunct The Facebook, and reconstituted the LLC under Facebook. Where they had majority class A. I think that's how they did it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

So I've watched just about every movie in existence, cept random old-school ones, so while browsing Netflix and Prime I came across The Social Network on Stars. Somehow I had never seen it yet. Got some pressing questions/thoughts.

1. How much of this is made up? I remember reading some where Zuck said it was 85% inaccurate but could not find an interview on it.

2. Really....who wouldn't have their lawyers look over documents about re-evaluation of stock options. C'mon son.

3. HOW did Mark screw Eduardo out of his shares? That scene was not entirely clear to me. I know they diluted them somehow, but how exactly?

You can bet the big concepts are 'Mostly True' simply by the fact that Mark paid them out. Its a very good movie if you want to understand how ideas are stolen and Techies are notorious for doing so. Many, like Mark, believe 'the idea is not the thing of worth. Its the coding that is' and they have a real disdain for Idea guys who cannot code their own ideas and who want a techie to build it for them, so they (and not the technie) can get rich. Since that movie Idea Guys go through major hoops to protect themselves VS techies to ensure their ideas are not stolen. The contracts for service have got far more complicated.

Anyway on the movie specifically...

---------------

The Winkle' bro's giving an initial idea to him that morphed into Facebook. True.

Him screwing Eduardo out of his shares. True.

The Eduardo situation is actually really easy to understand. No one, I've met reads the voluminous legal doc's that go into a transaction like that. You count on your lawyers to summarize, advise and protect you. Eduardo thought those lawyers represented him in that transaction and they did not. They were screwing him. But really the VC was taking advantage of Mark too as they knew Mark (and Mark alone) would have to make it back up to Eduardo by re-cutting his share. They let Mark's greed lead him into believing he could get away with screwing Eduardo like that and you cannot. There is a duty in situations like that to DEMAND the other person get ILA (independent legal advise) when your may be operating at cross purposes and they may not know. You actually need them to get their own lawyer and advice and sign off they have been advised by ILA.


I am confused by your second question since it is a while since I saw the movie so if you clarify I will try to answer.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Zuck said something like if they wanted to make an accurate film, it would have been two hours of showing people writing code lol.

Who knows how true to life it really is but we def know Zuck has incentive to say it wasn’t like that considering it doesn’t paint the nicest picture of him to say the least.

My assumption is there’s a lot of artistic license with some degree of accuracy.

the core concepts are true.

Mark was presented with an idea that he stole and morphed into FaceBook.

Mark did hook up with Sean Parker who really helped him through the structuring and financing and screwing of Eduardo.

Mark did try to screw Eduardo when building his empire.

Mark did pay all of them off handsomely.

How they tell the story however is where all the fabrication comes in. the real life story would be pretty boring for the most part.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Considering how he fumbled through the Congressional hearings I doubt he manhandled all those lawyers like they showed in the movie.

He is good at being obstinate and basically trolling, particularly when he feels he has the power. That is something his lawyers would tell him he dare not do with Congress so he would have been completely off his game there.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

SN is an excellent movie

 

[drstrangelov]

I thought it was the best movie of that year, and one of the best movies of the decade. The story was told perfectly and it made the great use of Jesse Eisenberg’s slightly hostile pretentiousness, turning his weakness (poor ability to show inferiority when the story calls for it) in other roles into a strength. It’s a hard line to walk, making an adult movie about college students, without some focusing tragedy, but they nailed it.

 

[Clippy]

Accurate or not I really thoroughly enjoyed this movie - something about it really interested me

I should probably add more to this story:

Me and two friends were bored and trying to figure out what to do so we decided on a movie, but which one? On friend really wanted to see this and me and the other guy were like meh and went with no real care to see it and the movie sucked me in and we both agreed that it was awesome.