Topic: The Social Network (Read 10323 times)

Aaden Foli · « **on:** 04 Nov 2010, 05:12 »

It was pretty fuckin good tbh. Anyone else seen it?

squawk · « **Reply #1 on:** 04 Nov 2010, 10:26 »

Andrew Garfield

Gemmwah · « **Reply #2 on:** 12 Nov 2010, 02:35 »

Quote from: squawk on 04 Nov 2010, 10:26

Andrew Garfield

I find it really difficult to take Andrew Garfield seriously because the first thing I saw him do was Sugar Rush, where he was the most awkward, spotty little stalker boy. Now every time I see him I just picture his premature ejaculation face. :/

StaedlerMars · « **Reply #3 on:** 12 Nov 2010, 02:51 »

he has large hair.

edited to contribute: Yeah, I actually quite enjoyed this movie. It felt really true to the story, and it really didn't try to paint anyone in a particularly negative, or positive, light. I could also relate with a lot of the comp sci stuff going on, so that was pretty cool.

Inlander · « **Reply #4 on:** 12 Nov 2010, 05:30 »

Quote from: Gemmwah on 12 Nov 2010, 02:35

I find it really difficult to take Andrew Garfield seriously because the first thing I saw him do was Sugar Rush, where he was the most awkward, spotty little stalker boy. Now every time I see him I just picture his premature ejaculation face. :/

I only just realised he's the guy from the first Red Riding film and now every time I see him I think that I never ever ever want to go to Yorkshire ever again. Not in the 70s, anyway.

Vuk · « **Reply #5 on:** 12 Nov 2010, 09:19 »

I thought it was well-done, though kind of cold at times. Not a huge Trent Reznor fan, but he and that other guy did a great job with it.

Tom · « **Reply #6 on:** 02 Jan 2011, 13:45 »

So this is really good and now I really want to bone Andrew Garfield.

Tom · « **Reply #7 on:** 02 Jan 2011, 14:43 »

Props to Timberlake and Eisenberg. They give this movie a focus that can only be described as a ballad of sexual/relational aggression and ambition.

Eris · « **Reply #8 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 00:52 »

ooh, that is a sneaky spambot. I wonder why you can't report posts for this subforum.

Jimor · « **Reply #9 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 04:12 »

Yeah, there's like 3 subforums where the report to moderator buttons are broken. Apparently a real person behind the 3 posted here in Entertainment going by how they are at least minimally on topic.

pwhodges · « **Reply #10 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 04:29 »

OK, I have removed the three messages I presume you are referring to, including the one in this thread. At a glance the others looked as if they could be naive newbies, but when I realised that they had email addresses that have been used in other forums with different personal details, it became clear that they were not. I guess Ben will have to look at the report link issue, as I can't go there (and I can see it anyway).

Eris · « **Reply #11 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 04:31 »

The other ones also had links to sites such as 'jshoes' and this one had 'vietnam tours' in their sigs. I thought they were newbies until I saw their sigs; it is normally a link to a product of some sort.

pwhodges · « **Reply #12 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 04:34 »

Ah... I have always had signatures hidden, as they generally bore me, and just waste screen space; I suppose I ought to have them on for this role, or at least check it in their profile if there is likely cause.

StaedlerMars · « **Reply #13 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 04:53 »

You can hide signatures?

pwhodges · « **Reply #14 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 04:55 »

In your profile, under "look and layout preferences"

Jimor · « **Reply #15 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 05:06 »

At least turning on sigs here has a minimal impact on how things look with the no-image rule (something I heartily approve of).

Tellingly, one of the spams that was deleted a few days ago had its wall of text with links as usual, but the sig link was to the SEO company doing the spamming. The main reason it's important to report/delete these things quickly is because what they care about is the site getting indexed by the regular Google spider run so that their URLs get higher placement in search rankings. And once a forum gets tagged as a "soft target" that doesn't delete the links, the spambots REALLY come out of the woodwork.

Equally annoying and less obvious are scout posts with no ads or links, but are simply a test to see if there's any moderation. I haven't seen many here, but another message board I frequent gets a lot of them. Usually a fairly innocuous greeting or question that almost seems on topic.

Edit: And to be marginally on topic considering the movie under discussion, I think one of the underestimated reasons that Facebook has surpassed MySpace is how well they've managed "friending" spam. I can think of only a handful of cases I've gotten on FB while it seemed like every time I signed onto MySpace, I'd get nearly instant friend requests from 3-4 girls with the same pool of profile pictures.

pwhodges · « **Reply #16 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 05:42 »

The spammers are pretty persistent even when the messages are deleted quickly (I've removed six spam messages since my last post).

Jimor · « **Reply #17 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 06:12 »

Yeah, I saw those. Same poster, different site for each post. The URLs didn't seem to match the "products", but they were possibly abandoned domains turned into spam farms. I certainly wasn't going to click them, no telling what kinds of viruses might be hiding there plus clickthroughs are another way they can identify a "live" site rich with potential victims.

Oh, and thank you, Paul.

Barmymoo · « **Reply #18 on:** 04 Jan 2011, 07:18 »

I went to see The Social Network because Harry Potter wasn't on, and I enjoyed it (although that's now coloured by the fact that it was indirectly the reason I got stuck in Heathrow for five days...). I was wondering though, how much of it is genuine, how much is fictionalised, and how much is somewhere in between? Do we know? I don't know if you can read case judgments in the US in the same way that I can here in the UK (which might actually just be a facility for law students, come to think of it) but if that is possible it would be interesting to read the actual case and see how much of it matched.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #19 on:** 18 Mar 2011, 21:48 »

Great film, got robbed at the Oscars.

henvinalink1 · « **Reply #20 on:** 13 Apr 2011, 05:38 »

ok, Thanks all!

JD · « **Reply #21 on:** 13 Apr 2011, 10:22 »

Huh, I still haven't seen this movie.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #22 on:** 13 Apr 2011, 13:16 »

You should change that.

Tom · « **Reply #23 on:** 13 Apr 2011, 14:58 »

It's not really that.

Tom · « **Reply #24 on:** 13 Apr 2011, 23:27 »

I'm not saying this movie is as good as or is Citizen Kane, but saying that this movie is about Facebook is like saying Citizen Kane was about Hearst's newspaper empire.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #25 on:** 13 Apr 2011, 23:29 »

That's actually a really good way to put it. I may steal that line.

pwhodges · « **Reply #26 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 22:12 »

It is the Facebook story, of course; but to my mind it fell uncomfortably between drama and documentary - it didn't quite succeed as either, but was interesting none the less.

JD · « **Reply #27 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 22:56 »

Quote from: Method of Madness on 13 Apr 2011, 13:16

You should change that.

I think what's stopping me is that I can't stand Jesse Eisenburg or Justin Timberlake.

Method of Madness · « **Reply #28 on:** 16 Apr 2011, 23:29 »

If you're not a fan of Eisenberg, you're not a fan of Eisenberg, but Timberlake's surprisingly good in this. (So is Eisenberg, but I like him in other things he's in, too)

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: The Social Network (Read 10323 times)

henvinalink1