
Mark Zuckerberg on What Hollywood Doesn't Get About Silicon Valley - pg
http://www.foundersatwork.com/1/post/2010/10/mark-zuckerberg-on-what-hollywood-doesnt-get-about-silicon-valley.html
======
michael_nielsen
Zuckerberg is flat-out wrong in his assertion that Hollywood doesn't
understand people building something just because they like building things.
I'm quite sure he's right when it comes to some people in Hollywood, possibly
even many of the most powerful people. But I'll bet that what gets a great
writer like Aaron Sorkin up in the morning is the same kind of creative
impulse that drives hackers. Sorkin is a hacker - just in a different medium.

None of which is to say that Sorkin's portrayal of Zuckerberg is at all
accurate. In the West Wing, Sorkin once wrote: "You think I think that an
artist's job is to speak the truth [but] an artist's job... is to captivate
you for however long we've asked for your attention." I think he's quite
right, but it's a heck of a philosophy if you're making a movie about someone
still living.

~~~
pg
"Creative" people don't all have one type of motivation. I think people in the
entertainment business don't usually have quite the same motivations that
hackers do. When people in the entertainment business make things, even when
they have the purest motives, they do it to affect an audience. Whereas
hackers often build things mainly for themselves, just to see if they'll work.

Movies are messages. Hacks are not, necessarily. I think what Mark meant is
that people in Hollywood would find it hard to imagine someone building
something like Facebook just to see if it would work, rather than to have some
effect on its audience, especially considering that one of Facebook's most
distinctive features, at least now, is the enormous number of users it has.

~~~
danilocampos
There's one wrinkle I see here, speaking as an Aaron Sorkin fanboy.

There's a lot Sorkin does that just shouldn't work. His dialogue is extremely
lengthy and, in the case of The West Wing and Sports Night, he completely
threw out the idea of using internal (team) conflict to drive the narrative,
choosing unity instead. His President of the United States was extraordinarily
idealistic and principled, even under fire.

This is a long way of saying I _think_ Sorkin does it this way to amuse
himself. He creates things he, himself, would like. He certainly feels an
obligation to his audience, as the parent comment mentioned, but overall he
writes the characters and dialogue in a way that gives _him_ pleasure.

edit: Even going so far as to inject the idea of taking pleasure from writing
things well into his scribe characters: Danny and Casey in Sports Night, Toby,
Sam, President Bartlet and Will on the West Wing.

~~~
radley
I'm also a Sorkin / WW fanboy and would add:

1) The movie isn't for y'all (i.e. SV programmers) - it's for everyone else.
How _Raiders of the Lost Ark_ is Spielberg's action-adventure archeology, _The
Social Network_ is a Sorkin-banter exercise.

2) Sorkin enjoys writing for intellectual ideology, which is very difficult to
position in any form of entertainment. In a way, he's forced to choose
personas capable of centering his complex dialog, be it the President of the
United States or a 20-something self-made billionaire.

------
andrewljohnson
What most hackers don't understand is that they do in fact have deep-seated
psychological motives for all the things they want to build.

I don't know if Sorkin's yarn was even close to reality, or whether Zuck's
angst at the time was merely coincidental with the development of FaceSmash.
But the motivation for building Facebook or anything else is always more
complex than "I thought it would be cool."

Hollywood may have missed the point, but they were right to look for one.

~~~
apl
I fully agree.

Zuckerbergs comment obviously resonates with the startup-happy audience he was
and is facing, so the reaction here as well as there doesn't surprise. But I
openly doubt that the history of Facebook rests on nothing but the desire to
build cool things. The first prototype? Maybe. But he took it further, much
further. It's not necessarily what Sorkin decided it should be. However, I'm
willing to bet money that other factors did play a role.

For evidence, just remember that there were lawsuits, that there was drama,
that significant amounts of money traded hands before everything became
harmonious. Plus, the narration at the beginning of the movie? That _is_
Zuckerberg.

~~~
borism
I'm pretty sure even the first prototype had much deeper psychological meaning
than what's being presented. Heck, I was in a college at the time too and I
think I know fairly well why so many guys tried to do their versions of "face
book".

"We just like to build things" excuse sounded so lame it's unbelievable it
came from a person who supposedly studied psychology.

~~~
runT1ME
So, you too don't understand the desire just to build things?

------
ojbyrne
While the motivation for Facebook was probably over-dramatized, I don't think
you can support for even a second the idea that Hollywood (whatever that is)
doesn't understand the joy of building things for their own sake.

After all, even the line "If you build it, they will come" is from a movie.

~~~
hugh3
That wasn't about building things for its own sake, though, that was about
building things in order to hang out with some ghostly baseball players.

(Or something; I haven't actually seen the movie but I gather that's what it's
about.)

Doing something for its own sake (also known as doing something for the hell
of it) may be a realistic reason for doing things in the real world, but it
doesn't make much of a story. Drama is all about motivation, and about
characters striving after the things they want, and if your character does
things for no other motivation than "Meh, I was bored and I kinda felt like
it, and it was sorta fun" then it's a dull story.

I've got a story for you. Kevin Costner is a corn farmer, and one day he gets
up and said "Y'know what? I think I'll build a baseball field in my
cornfield". A few weeks later he's finished, and he says "Well, that was fun".
Good story? I don't think so.

~~~
ojbyrne
Sure, but the movie was called "Field of Dreams." I.e. he was motivated by
dreams.

~~~
edanm
Yes, but not by "dreams" in the abstract sense of something you wish will
happen, but by _actual dreams_ , in the fantasy sense of something talking to
you in your sleep.

~~~
hugh3
Or maybe one as a metaphor for the other. Still, it's not a great example.

I'm struggling to think of examples of movies where characters really _are_
motivated by doing stuff just for the hell of it. The only example I've got so
far is the Joker from The Dark Knight. His motivation throughout is exactly
what Zuckerberg described -- doing things because he _can_ and because it
would be interesting to try. It's not exactly a positive portrayal, though.

------
scottmp10
I agree that building things is its own motivation for many hackers but I also
know many who have other motivations. One of my friends, for instance, has a
borderline irrational desire to be more successful than his girlfriend's ex-
boyfriend. Another is motivated purely by money and is now working in the
finance industry.

To say that Hollywood "got it wrong" can only be true in this specific
context. While it may or may not have been the case with MZ, there are
certainly hackers that are motivated to work on significant projects in order
to be accepted by girls or organizations, as the movie portrays.

------
frading
Mark Zuckerberg is quite young, and has a movie made about himself and his
life's work, so I would not expect him to be objective about this. My strong
opinion, considering myself hacker and filmmaker, is that both activities
share the same motivation, which is exactly creating things. The process might
differ in some ways, but when I create a software or a movie, I am driven by a
similar passion.

I cannot imagine a movie director or writer not being fully in love with the
material he or she is developing. They usually live and sleep with it, it
affects their personal life very much, so it is not really something you can
pretend to enjoy. If you do pretend, that shows, and you usually end up with a
bad movie.

I'd advice to watch this charlie rose interview of Sorkin and Fincher:
<http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11223> . At one point, they mention
they tried to talk to Mark, in order to have a counter opinion from the one
expressed in the 'accidental billionaire' book, but he turned down the offer.
I am sure Sorkin, while aiming to be very entertaining, wished he could stay
as close to reality as possible.

~~~
skinnymuch
Someone on HN linked to to a piece that stated Sorkin preferred good drama
over the truth when it really came down to it which resulted in disagreements
between him and Fincher (who supposedly wanted the truth first and foremost).
And based off my own bias views of both guys, I find this to be most
believeable.

~~~
frading
I cannot find the piece you mention, if you could point me to it, that d be
great.

------
Tycho
The script was very subtle and managed to portray a multitude of motivations
and justifications for more than one character. From what I could tell, it
never said impressing a girl was the motivation for creating Facebook, and it
portrayed Zuckerberg as someone who cared more about building stuff than he
cared about relationships or money. Certainly it did make the (separate)
implication that his handling of people/relationships/partnerships may be a
source of regret as he matures as a person beyond 'I'm CEO, bitch.'

------
philwelch
Zuckerberg's point is that Hollywood screenwriters don't understand that
hackers are motivated by creating things for the sake of creating things. I
find this very strange because screenwriters are themselves supposed to be
creative people. Their failure to recognize a creative impulse in hackers says
_something_ , but I don't know what.

~~~
gaius
A Hollywood blockbuster is written by a screenwriting team who use formulae
and focus group feedback to make a saleable product. They're unionized and it
is just an assembly line job.

Not that there aren't creative writers, mind. But those guys are making
arthouse flicks, not working for Jerry Bruckheimer.

~~~
ceejayoz
I think there's a pretty big gap between folks like Sorkin and Bruckheimer.

------
waterlesscloud
You know, screenwriters study and obsess over motivations and why people do
things as much as a hacker studies and obsesses over how a particular system
works.

Sorkin is one of the very best in the world at what he does. Top 5 or 10,
easy, and he has been in that league for well over a decade now.

Perhaps the character in the film is more complex than people here are
portraying him to be.

------
dools
That's a charismatic performance. It's an important choice of words how he
says "we in silicon valley"... it really gets the audience on side.

But I think he's disingenuous, and I think he's been coached. The way he
pitches this; it's as if, when he was building facebook, he was like a hobby
botanist marvelling at a new flower he'd discovered in his favourite meadow.
That the entire exercise was just about the thrill of creation and discovery.

You only have to watch the "new" section of HN for a day to see that most
hackers are acutely aware of the monetary potential of their creations, and in
some cases far more interested in the glamour of being an entrepreneur than
the thrill and art of creating software.

I'm not saying that the two are mutually exclusive - I certainly work very
passionately on things I believe in and aspire to make millions of dollars as
a result, but I think in this video clip Zuck is doing a little Hollywood
framing of his own.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
The money is a rationalization. Its approval that many of us seek. Otherwise
why tell people about it? Even evangelize about the pet project? Its a social
need.

------
harscoat
The new Glamour thx to Hollywood: "I am an Entrepreneur" -Sean
Parker(/Timberlake) to the girl is just slept with

------
olavk
Movies does not reflect how the movie-makers understand the world.

When movies show computers searching for fingerprints by displaying a series
of fingerprints in rapid succession on-screen, it is _not_ because the movie-
makers actually thinks that databases works like that. It is because it is an
effective way of telling that piece of story.

Movies reflect how the movie-makers believe that a story can be told most
effectively. And they have quite a lot of experience in this field.

Dramatic storytelling requires that the protagonist has a motivation to reach
a goal. "For the fun of it" is not a dramatically effective motivation, since
it does not drive the story towards a climax where the goal is reached - or
lost forever.

------
Typhon
Meanwhile, after seeing the movie, someone else concluded not only that
Zuckerberg's main motivation was building something with his mind but that he
enjoyed literally nothing but coding (to put it mildly) :

<http://www.ferretbrain.com/articles/article-678>

I haven't seen the movie myself.

------
dualboot
I'm just going to say that having seen the movie I'm personally impressed with
how well Zuckerberg is handling responses to what must be an incredibly
surreal experience in the public.

His personal technical abilities and the relative accuracies/inaccuracies of a
major Hollywood movie aside.

I can't imagine it being particularly fun. Kudos for laughing at it.

------
bluethunder
Agree totally. I realized early on that some of us are just born to build.
Everything else, including making money is just secondary.

For some of us the biggest part of our happiness is dependent on the meaning
that we seek through our work, and more importantly, anything less than
building something isnt meaning enough.

------
nowarninglabel
I haven't seen the movie, but I'm a bit confused by these comments. Zuckerberg
signed a contract and did work for the sake of the contract, then later
branching out. I don't see how you can ascribe his motives to be purely
creative. Perhaps, I have missed some fact in this?

~~~
bloomshed
The movie claims that Zuckerberg created the primordial version of facebook
after getting dumped and subsequently drunk. He stole a bunch of images and
created a "hot or not" thing called FaceSmash. This supposedly set him on the
path towards creating facebook.

The weakest part of the whole film was at the end when it shows Zuckerberg
alone, pitiful, refreshing his facebook page hoping his long lost ex would be
his "friend" on facebook. I'm one of those people who feels insulted when
filmmakers pull overt, lazy stunts like that.

Sorkin hates the idea of facebook. He thinks the whole idea of a social
network is a lie and he may be right. He thinks people who use facebook are
wasting their time. I saw that on Colbert I think.

I applaud Sorkin's candor. Not too many people say what they think these days,
but I felt like he was insulting the audience with that last scene, saying,
essentially, "You people do this too, and you're pitiful." He didn't have to
show us what was on Zuckerberg's screen. Most people could have guessed what
he was doing without seeing the screen. Sorkin decided to show the screen so
people would have no doubts about what was happening. I'm reasonably certain
Zuckerberg was not actually doing that during his deposition.

~~~
stuhacking
It was called Facemash, and the idea behind it (according to the movie) was
that comparisons were more 'turing' than arbitrary scores as used on "hot or
not."

The characters' motives as presented in the movie might be fabrication or
speculation (depending on your view of the true story) but they still make for
a better and more tense story (imho).

~~~
bloomshed
Facemash makes more sense I think I was misled by another comment I read,
thanks.

To an uneducated observer (that would be me and I cautiously assume most of
the girls being compared on Facemash back then) girls were being evaluated on
their physical appearance. That is not a noble pursuit.

I completely agree with you about the motives of the characters in the movie
being ultimately for the movie. I think a lot of people in this discussion are
reading way too much into Sorkin and Zuckerberg.

Anyone who seriously thinks Zuckerberg made facebook because he got dumped by
a girl doesn't deserve acknowledgment. It was a mistake for Zuckerberg to even
bring this up.

~~~
stuhacking
> To an uneducated observer girls were being evaluated on their physical
> appearance. That is not a noble pursuit.

Yeah, that's right. It was the execution that was referred to as 'Turing'
rather than the notion that they were being compared by a metric other than
looks. (I'm sorry if I'm being redundant here.)

This is a reference to the Turing test, whereby, an observer holds
conversations simultaneously with a human and computer counterpart over a
network. The observer must attempt to identify the computer from the two
conversations purely from the responses given. So it's the idea of putting two
things side-by-side and choosing the more desirable... as opposed to simply
assigning a number which is a little more arbitrary.

I suppose on one hand he saw an idea that would become an instant success due
to the simplicity of execution.

You are right though: It's not a noble pursuit.

------
whackedspinach
Did anyone else see that movie and feel that this had been portrayed? The
Zuckerberg in the movie obviously wanted to be part of the social group, but I
also got that 'building' vibe. Maybe it is just because I compared the entire
movie to The Fountainhead.

~~~
parasubvert
Yeah I got that from the movie too. It definitely illustrated that Mark had
mixed motivations in creating Facebook, but generally it seemed to portray
"building stuff" as an outlet to whatever more primordial drives (fear, angst,
excitement, desire for power, status, etc.) were behind the action.

the movie wasn't about reality, it was about the exaggerated reality from
court depositions, qualified by counter-arguments. Made me think of Rashomon.

------
nikster
I don't know Mark Zuckerberg and I haven't been following any gossip magazines
or seen the social network.

But he's just earned my respect. Great answer right there. Then the whole
facebook thing - he's been getting decisions right for years on end.

------
napierzaza
Could MZ have done more damage control since the release of the social
network? He's given away hundreds of millions of dollars and done myriad
interviews since then. This is at least the most direct he's been about why
he's around so much in the public eye. But really, come on, it's a movie.

~~~
dsplittgerber
It's just a movie, for us over here at HN.

For most regular people, it's the first time they ever hear about Mark
Zuckerberg, who apparently is the guy running the site they spend all day
using and posting personal stuff to. And the guy who runs the site they use to
interact with their friends and share their photos has done some quite nasty
stuff in the past, like mashing face photos together etc etc.

When I went to see the movie, the whole cinema was dumbfounded when the
credits appeared and it was revealed that facebook is somehow currently worth
25 billion USD. People in general don't know anything about facebook.

~~~
kyro
But I'm sure that didn't stop Jack and Jill from liking each other's statuses
once they got home from the cinema to tell the world that they had just seen
the movie. I don't think it really affected anyone, at least not Facebook's
main demographic.

