
Scott Adams: The Social Network, "The best movie I've ever seen" - cwan
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/the_social_network__review/
======
acangiano
From the comments: "He's just a guy who knows a bit of PHP and wanted to get
rich, along with the creators of 1000 other social networking sites, and just
got lucky that his went viral."

It's amazing how easy it is to dismiss other people's accomplishments. Notice
how "Knew a little bit of PHP and got lucky" is used to represent years of
hard work, business and development wise.

You must have never run a business if you think that Zuckerberg's success came
easy and was due to sheer luck.

~~~
seldo
I've seen a lot of coverage of Zuck as a "genius computer hacker", reinforced
by the Hackers-style montage in the film which makes it look like what he did
was really hard (oh no, he busted out emacs! He must be a genius!).

Actually, Facebook's core functionality, at least at small scale, is trivial.
It's a database of people, with CRUD on top. All the really hard technical
problems Facebook has solved -- and there were many, don't get me wrong --
have to do with scaling that system, and those problems were solved long after
Zuck was no longer hands-on with the code every day.

That's not to say I don't think Zuck is really smart. What I think he's really
smart _at_ , though, is interface design and user experience. The film touches
on this, noting that Facebook's exclusivity was key to its early popularity.
However, the reason Facebook really trounced Friendster and MySpace was that
it was a much, much better experience. Everything worked perfectly and each
screen was carefully thought-out in terms of information density and
placement.

Of course, Sorkin's narrative for the film is that Zuck is an aspie geek who
built a website because he doesn't understand people, so the counter-evidence
-- that Facebook's design is clearly built by somebody who understands people
very well indeed -- has to be downplayed.

~~~
cynicalkane
Managing a large, rapidly scaling web business such as Facebook is not exactly
trivial, either.

~~~
kloncks
That's exactly the point seldo makes.

~~~
cynicalkane
What? Where does he discuss this? He's talking about designing a user
experience as if there's no managerial aspect involved in that at all. I can
find no reference to the difficulty of running a company that actually can
deliver that solid Facebook user experience. Not that he doesn't think this is
hard; it's that he doesn't mention it.

It's not as though being the Harvard kid writing the first version of
thefacebook.com is the same as running a large company; as if Zuckerberg can
just hire people to do hard coding for him and that's the end of it. I thought
I'd point out that building Facebook as a company is something that would have
been, and is, hard. The inability to grow has killed promising web businesses.

I don't understand why I'm being downvoted and you're being upvoted.

Addendum: the downvotes continue. Someone explain what I'm missing, please.

~~~
zaidf
I concur with you. I don't understand why folks _must_ criticize or demean
Zuck. What exactly are these people criticizing him for? That he did not solve
the biggest scaling problems and instead let his employees do that(ever wonder
how they attracted those employees in first place)? That he did not write
every line of code(where would Facebook even be if Zuck insisted on writing
code himself)? That all he's got is a site with 500M users and a shit load of
revenue(raise your hand if you got a site with .0001% of that)?

Good god it is outrightly ridiculous. Yes, I am a Zuck fanboy. At least I can
admit it and cite a few reasons why. All I keep hearing from the other side is
"omg all he's got is a freakin php site". Yeah, that's why he is a billionaire
and you are not.

People keep saying "all Zuck did was scale". _DOH!_ Scaling is what separates
McDonalds from your local burger joint and facebook from millions of other php
sites. If scaling is _all_ Zuckerberg has done, _good_ for him! That is all he
should be doing.

~~~
kyro
It's more jealousy than anything. People hate the fact that someone their age
or younger is living the dream -- Ivy League education, explosive traction,
rapid growth, investors at your feet, multimillionaire, all during your 20's.

~~~
julian37
Not multimillionaire - multibillionaire, with a B.

<http://www.forbes.com/profile/mark-zuckerberg>

That said, I can't see anybody in this thread being jealous or criticizing
Zuckerberg. People are merely stating that his accomplishments do not
automatically make him a "genius hacker" just because his very successful
business happens to have to do with "computers".

------
seldo
The NY Times noted that audience reaction to The Social Network has been split
very firmly by age:

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/media/04carr.html>

Basically, older folk think the thing is a hatchet job on Mark Zuckerberg, and
that he comes across as a tragic figure. Younger folk seem to think of Zuck as
a hero, who pulled off world-changing accomplishments despite rich idiots
trying to bring him down.

I think the difference is not actually "old" and "young", but "technical" and
"nontechnical". People who like technology and understand it (this does not
include Aaron Sorkin) are awed by Zuck's accomplishments, while those who do
not understand how hard it was instead focus on his personal failures. Adams,
who is in his 50s but firmly understands technology, reinforces this view.

~~~
slantyyz
Not sure that I buy into the "technical" and "nontechnical" argument. I'm
middle aged and technical and while I -respect- Zuck's accomplishments, I can
definitely say there's no hero worship involved.

The focus on his personal failures is to be expected, and it has little to do
with age or technical awareness. Zuck is at the top of his field, so everyone
loves a bit of schadenfreude when it presents itself.

I remember that people used to get their hate on for Marc Andreesen once upon
a time.

~~~
gruseom
_people used to get their hate on for Marc Andreesen_

Now that you mention it I remember that too. How perceptive of you to note the
similarity. In both cases, garden-variety schadenfreude was multiplied by
their massive success.

Incidentally, not one of the successful people I've known thinks this way.

------
jsiarto
The one thing I really appreciated about the movie was the accuracy of the
computer monitor shots and dialogue about servers/hacking. While pretty basic
Apache config stuff, It's nice to see a respect for the technology.

~~~
gecko
Indeed. There was something wonderful about seeing not just real desktop
shots, but desktop shots _with the correct contemporary hardware and
software._ Mozilla-the-app, Emacs 19, thick crappy Dells. Just a nice break
from Hollywood effects.

~~~
AdamTReineke
My brother noticed that they had a Mountain Dew can accurate to the time
period.

------
KoZeN
Wow. I naturally expected the title of that blog to be tongue-in-cheek.

I was actively avoiding paying to see that movie as I feared it would be
another Hollywood over-dramatisation of an actual event but based on the
emphasis Scott placed on the quality behind this movie, I may just change my
mind!

~~~
gecko
I really liked it.

It's certainly not 100% accurate, and I don't think it's trying to be. It
glosses over some major aspects of Facebook's history (like Zuckerberg's
friendship with Graham, the heavy focus on Wirehog, the importance of Dustin
Moskowitz, and so on), it compresses a lot of events into a shorter timespan
than they occurred in real life (Facemash, renaming from Thefacebook to
Facebook, the excising of Saverin from the company, the acquisition of VC, the
move to real offices), and it fabricates a bit wholesale (it plays up one of
Zuckerberg's ex-girlfriends, making it seem as if she was his only one;
portrays Zuckerberg as having heavy asperger syndrome; implies that all of
Facebook's funds came from Saverin; pretends Facebook was started because
Zuckerberg wanted into Harvard's Final Clubs, etc.). That's true.

But it's not about vilifying Facebook; the dramatic license was taken to be
dramatic, not to make some point about Zuckerberg or Facebook. Zuckerberg is
portrayed as a total genius; his role as CEO is respected; he is not portrayed
as having ripped off the idea for Facebook from the Winklevoss twins, and
while he does ultimately screw over Saverin, the movie goes to pains to make
it clear that it _had_ to happen for the success of the company. At the risk
of sounding a bit truthy, I think that the movie did a superb job capturing
the _feel_ of a startup in Facebook's situation, even if some of the facts are
slightly off.

While I think this review is slightly hyperbolic, I don't think it's crazy,
either. The movie was insanely well-done from start to finish, and I don't
honestly think that the creative license is much worse than, say, Apollo 13. I
think if you were expecting to see geeks get vilified, you'll be very
pleasantly surprised.

~~~
iamdave
*asperger

~~~
gecko
Thanks; fixed.

------
ErrantX
Reading this I think that, actually, he likes this film _not_ because it is a
brilliant topic or for the fact it is about Facebook - but because it is
extremely well written and realistic.

I agree entirely with his gripe that such a thing is unusual for "big" modern
films.

This actually might make me go and see it now :)

------
bambax
> _Normally the writer's craft is so obvious that it buries the art. When the
> art buries the craft, you have something special._

This kind of formulation is upsetting because art and craft are the same thing
(in many languages they're the same word, too). If you can't see the "art"
"behind" the craft, then the craft is poor. The whole purpose of craft is to
hide itself.

Now, the craft is usually so poor that we made a whole other concept for "good
craft", and that is "art".

It wouldn't be a problem if "art" was just a shorthand for "good craft", but
then it took a life of its own, and became associated with miracles, "gift of
God".

\- - -

That said, to me, "the best movie I've ever seen" is _A Few Good Men_ , by the
same Sorkin. I can't wait to see this one!

~~~
dtf
I disagree. Craft is skill. Art is expression.

~~~
bambax
You can't express yourself if your skills are poor.

You're right that someone who has nothing to say will create artifacts of low
value; but I would argue that expression is a function of one's mastery of the
craft.

There is a recurring theme in PG's essays about how computer languages affect
how you think and therefore, what you can say using them. This is also a
common theme in the "suits vs. geeks" debate; if you can't code, how can you
imagine what code can do?

In general the (philosophical) jury's still out on whether language predates
thinking or the other way around; but it's a fact that all great "artists"
produce their best work after many many years of practicing and perfecting
their craft.

~~~
BrandonM
> You can't express yourself if your skills are poor.

Bob Dylan is not a very skillful singer, and he is far from the best guitar
player (especially early on, when he used very few chords). The same can be
said of Johnny Cash. Yet they both expressed themselves very well, and their
art was good enough to propel them to stardom.

------
rwhitman
A friend the other day called it "The Godfather of our generation". I don't
really get how they got that out of it.

I came out of the theater kind of depressed. And worrying a lot about lawyers.
I've always wondered what it feels like to be someone who works in a hospital
and then comes home to watch a hospital drama on TV. Now I know. Its kind of
weird.

------
mattmaroon
You almost get the impression that the author has just never seen a good movie
before. Almost everything he said could be applied to any top film maker.
Coens, PT Anderson, Wes Anderson, lots of others. If all you've seen are
summer blockbusters I can see how you might be wowed by good writing and lack
of special effects.

Sorkin's good for sure, sometimes really good, but he too has his weaknesses.
For instance the fact that every character has the diction of a Harvard
English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw.

~~~
hugh3
_he too has his weaknesses. For instance the fact that every character has the
diction of a Harvard English professor and the wit of George Bernard Shaw._

Is that really a weakness? Strict realism in dialogue generally makes for
pretty poor drama. Shakespeare's characters talk like nobody has ever talked,
but his plays would not be improved by sticking in a bunch of "umm"s and
"ahh"s and repetition and "y'know" and repetition and, uhh, stuff like that,
y'know?

~~~
mattmaroon
Yes and no I suppose. When it's unrelenting, ubiquitous (politicians and
waiters) and in everything he ever composes, I'd consider it a weakness.

Of course you don't expect anyone to talk exactly as people do, with umms and
ahs and all that. But Steinbeck and Hemingway (and in film, most of the people
I mentioned in my original post) prove that you can write great drama and
dialogue with a good degree of realism.

Also many people did speak similar to Shakespeare's characters, though of
course with less rhyming since they weren't poets and Shakespeare was. There's
a good explanation of that here
"[http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_th...](http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_people_really_speak_the_way_they_did_in_Shakespeare%27s_plays)

~~~
pohl
Just like Claude Monet and those big, unrealistic blobs of paint. Such a
weakness.

~~~
mattmaroon
Monet never feels cliche, even all these years later. Sorkin starts to after a
few episodes.

------
agentultra
I just don't like the contrived marketing of the film. People should be able
to draw their own conclusions from the characters. Instead the conclusions are
shoved down their throats "punk, genius, billionaire."

Honestly, I didn't find anything "punk" about the film nor do I think he was a
genius.

The lottery is proof that millions of dollars doesn't make you smarter.

~~~
pchristensen
I agree. (all these observations are about movie Zuck, not real Zuck)

He's not a punk, me's more like someone who has been bullied, pushed around,
and ignored his whole life and he's not going to take it anymore.

He might be a genius, but that's not what's special about him. It's his
determination to succeed at any cost. Lots of 19 year olds are geniuses, but
most know when to quit.

Sure he's a billionaire, but there was only one line in the movie where that
was even relevant (An extremely juicy line, I might add). He was after power,
success, and influence much more than he was about money.

I couldn't decide if the movie portrayed him as a sympathetic villain or a
tragic hero. Probably more like a real life complicated person going through
an amazing journey.

~~~
AndrewMoffat
_I couldn't decide if the movie portrayed him as a sympathetic villain or a
tragic hero. Probably more like a real life complicated person going through
an amazing journey._

I liked that too. A lot of the dynamics and relationships weren't very black
and white at all, which made it that much more engaging and realistic.

------
tel
I haven't seen The Social Network. I'm fully willing to believe that it is a
fantastic movie, and, just based on collateral evidence, I'd even put some
money down on Sorkin doing well in the Academy Awards. I will probably see it
very soon.

Nevertheless, I still think that this post is _mostly_ evidence that Scott
Adams hasn't watched a lot of classic movies that have stood the test of time.
To state that The Social Network stands with the greatest movies of all time
(as Adams' statement could have meant if he'd seen a lot of them) is one
thing, but I take it as pretty unlikely that it surpasses the whole field.
Unless, of course, the "whole field" he's implying it compares to is pretty
small.

So, cool, I'm glad he liked it. I'm also not sure what knowing his opinion
earned me.

------
jonasvp
Lawrence Lessig has an interesting take on the movie:
[http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-
zucke...](http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/78081/sorkin-zuckerberg-
the-social-network)

He basically says that it's old media (Sorkin and Hollywood) casting new media
(Zuckerberg) in a bad light, compared to the good guys - the honorable and
respectable lawyers (of all people).

The real point of Facebook's success according to Lessig: "Instead, what’s
important here is that Zuckerberg’s genius could be embraced by half-a-billion
people within six years of its first being launched, without (and here is the
critical bit) asking permission of anyone. The real story is not the
invention. It is the platform that makes the invention sing."

------
Keyframe
It's just a movie trying to cash-in on a facebook phenomenon. Guy made a
website that was popular among a certain clique and spread out like a
wildfire. There's nothing genius about his "hacking" abilities (I'm pretty
allergic to what is stuffed into that term on this site)... he made LOTS of
money, geek with money - tension, drama. the end.

I don't get it what is there more to it, except for the fact that most of the
people here would like to be that guy, because they are trying to enter the
tangential business space he is in.

------
nirai
Received 100% from Rotten Tomatoes top critics:
[http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-
network/?critic=c...](http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-
network/?critic=creamcrop#contentReviews)

Never seen that happen before.

~~~
quux
Toy Story 3 did that too.

~~~
pauldino
All the Toy Story films have 100% Top Critics ratings, in fact.

------
pdx
IMO, Facebook did well for two reasons, brand recognition and phased roll-out.

After it started taking off at Harvard, you had the Harvard brand, which is a
pretty big deal, to encourage uptake at other colleges. By going college by
college, critical mass was easier to achieve, as it didn't need a lot of
people, it just needed a lot of people at your particular college, to
encourage the non-early-adopters to join in. By the time it was actually
competing with MySpace, etc, for non college users, it already had a sizable
user group in the key demographic, and as I recall, the "started at harvard"
branding was still to be heard.

------
runcible_spork
Movie or no, "They trust me. Dumb fucks." is the core of Facebook.

------
mikeknoop
Our of sheer curiosity, how would you compare "The Social Network" with
"Pirates of Silicon Valley"?

~~~
quux
Hmm

Social network has superior directing and writing IMO. But they are similar in
many respects.

PoSV simply tells the story in a pretty straightforward way, while TSN is
structured more as a search for the true story. It's structured as a bunch of
flashbacks from the depositions of Mark, Eduardo, and the Winklevoss twins.
Each party tells their version of things, and as a character says at one
point, 15% of typical testimony is lies, the remaining 85% is exaggerated.

The movie doesn't try to take sides, and leaves it up to the viewer to decide
who was right and wrong (if anyone.)

------
davidw
I guess he's never seen "Army of Darkness".

~~~
spitfire
THIS is my boomstick!

------
lovskogen
I think this movie was issued by Facebooks PR department, to further embark
the notion that Facebook is 'the only social network'.

------
runcible_spork
Prediction: In six months, if this movie is remembered at all, we'll all
realize that it's actually a pretty stupid movie.

------
masterponomo
For me, it's a close second to "Swordfish" for movie depictions of computer
programming (at least the way I do it at home).

~~~
AndrewMoffat
I don't really see how that could be. Zuck was using emacs, wget, and PHP is
plausible ways to accomplish things that a tech-savvy viewer would see as
realistic. In Swordfish, Jobson was visually programming a "hydra" matrix-
textured rubiks cube and dropping "logic bombs" into the DoD web login forms.

~~~
quux
While getting a blowjob, IIRC.

I mean, come on... that's only happened to me a handful of times.

~~~
masterponomo
That was just during the job interview. And they say Google is a tough
interview.

