Title: A BIG THUMBS UP
Print Status: Available
|
|
Buy now!
Comic ID #6817
Title: A BIG THUMBS UP
Print Status: Available
Title: A BIG THUMBS UP
Print Status: Available
Discussion (16) ¬
[ Comments RSS ]
Comment ¬
I might be the only one who thinks like this. But every time you used the name “Jarvis” in this article, I started rattling off Iron Man one-liners in my head. Is that weird?
HaH! I did same thing!
“Erica Albright” was a fictionalized version of a real-life ex-girlfriend, Jessica Alona.
This is (allegedly) the actual LiveJournal entry he posted: http://www.scribd.com/doc/538697/Mark-Zuckerbergs-Online-Diary
The parts about creating FaceMash (specifically hacking into the various house’s computers to get the photos) seems verbatim from what they used in the movie. The movie seems to add a bit about “Albright’s” bra size, though, and I’m not sure if that’s because just saying she was a bitch online seems kind of mild, or if (perhaps) they took that from another LiveJournal post of his and just melded the two together, combining the two messages into one for the sake of streamlining the narrative.
Turning her into “the one that got away” (Rosebud, as it were) just seems like they were stretching to have some sort of unifying thematic thread. It’s worth noting that Zuckerberg started dating Priscilla Chan shortly thereafter and is still dating her (with a short break at some point, according to a New Yorker interview I just read), and Chan isn’t in the movie at all.
And yet it works, because Jessica Alona, Erica Albright, or Priscilla Chan, the truth is that everything every man does revolves on some level around getting laid, literally or figuratively.
one of the best written blogs ive read for a while.
makes me a) want to see the film, and b) unconsciously file Jarvis with Armond White.
keep up the good work!
I think it’s a little crazy that Jarvis responded to your tweet. He must think pretty highly of himself if he has a search set up for his name.
More telling, you can’t read his tweets unless he approves you to follow them.
Yeah. Way to really leverage social media there, Jarvis. Not a one-way street with you at all..
:: eyeroll ::
When you’re in the public eye, at all, you wind up doing some self-searches. I have a Google alert set to my name every day. I know Tom’s done some searching for what people are saying about Theater Hopper.
It’s not necessarily conceit, just curiosity, I suspect. I think Jarvis’ reply is kinda amusing. 😀
I’m not saying I’m without blame. I self-search every now and then. It’s fun. Just weird that Jarvis caught my tweet literally a few hours after I posted it. Probably a coincidence, but still. Kinda freaky. Even when I self-search, I usually don’t call out haters – even jokingly. Why engage when someone is obviously not into you?
I am willing to give Fincher the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, the book the film is based on is total bs – the author even went so far as to claim he had made stuff up about the creation of Facebook to create drama. Zodiac, which I loved, was also based on a book was total bs in terms of historical accuracy. The point of contention for me is that the story and the characters are compelling. There are numerous films out there I adore that are historically inaccurate – Gladiator, just to name one off the top of my head. And I am a history major – believe, when I want to, I will bitch a movie out for representing this event or that individual incorrectly, but that is only when the story doesn’t grasp me. If the story sucks and isn’t compelling then I will nitpick.
In particular, I was impressed with how accurate they kept the tech stuff throughout. They kind of had to, given the audience that’d be seeing it. Nothing’s perfect, but it was pretty spot on. Seeing him pop in a wget command at the outset made me happy (in part because I’ve written similar scripts for completely legitimate reasons).
Since Facebook is essentially a data-gathering tool for advertisers and the NSA/CIA/other spooks, I would be more interested in seeing a documentary about what it is really being used for.
My feeling was that this film was a lot like “Rudy” except instead of a football player, it was self-important douchebags
Excellent post, Tom! My friend Kevin (who commented above) turned me onto it, and we ended up discussing your view and Jarvis’ on our latest episode of Bad Philosophy. I think Kiki Canon (@voiceofkiki) might have mentioned it to you already. Episode link below if you’re interested.
http://www.badphilosophy.com/blog/?p=225
I agree the performances and directing were great, and I enjoyed the dialogue. I thought the story was a little lacking, though. It should have been called “Why you should hate Mark Zuckerberg,” because at no point does that guy even try to redeem himself. Not that he should apologize for his actions in the movie, but there’s little ability to connect to his character, I felt.
I was less impressed with the film, but I did enjoy seeing it.
I think that’s kind of the point – you’re not SUPPOSED to connect with Zuckerberg, nor would he want you to.
It’s the ironic nature Sorkin installs into the character. Zuckerberg wants friends, wants social acceptance. But his intellect puts him above people at such a level that he has almost disdain for them.
“… a calculated complaint designed to stir the pot and draw attention to Jarvis.”
Jarvis in a nutshell.
The movie was highly entertaining. I expect little more from movies.