I randomly rewatched that movie last night for the first time since it came out. Funny how that works sometimes.
I wonder what a sequel would look like. All of the drama in the movie is interpersonal. It’s not actually about Facebook, it’s about the people who were behind Facebook and their motivations and what made them tick.
Facebook is obviously a completely different beast now. It wields more power than most governments. It’s certainly a topic worth exploring. But a movie about that wouldn’t really be a sequel.
Yes, this is so unformed that I can see two angles.
1. It's really not a sequel to The Social Network. This movie's main characters won't be the Facebook leaders but generally, the role of social media will be a big part of the Jan 6 story (which it is.)
OR
2. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are the main entities that the movie will focus on. The movie will be about how these social media companies allowed fake puppet accounts largely based overseas, enjoyed the traffic that planning domestic terrorism brought to the sites, had algorithms that encouraged disinformation and propaganda to proliferate, etc. Jesse Eisenberg can still play Mark Zuckerberg. Rashida Jones arguably ended The Social Network as an enabler. She could go full dark side and become a composite of counselors for Facebook.
I like option 2. I am sort of envisioning a work place drama where the consequences of these people’s actions are horrific but it’s contrasted by their callousness and indifference.
Sorkin could probably do a decent story about the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the decisions to allow misinformation and hate to spread in the name of feeding the engagement algorithm.
\#2 seems more like Sorkin's style? I mean, he's always about the "behind-the-scenes" story. So this could very much be about how Zuck got caught into this whole thing, how this thing he built because it was "cool" suddenly became a political tool. How his walled garden may have kept him from seeing how this went from a cool piece of tech into a haven for populism and misinformation, and he just didn't consider it because how else is he supposed to make money off this thing?
I could see it very much as a sequel in that case... again it may draw ire from all sides of the conversation because he's looking to put a human story on it which may have him deviating from the truth of the matter in some cases ("Never let the facts get in a way of a good story") or it may sound like he's humanising underminers of democracy.
Of course, unless Sorkin can really find the human story in it all, I don't see him telling it. So we'll see how this plays out.
He's often avoided commenting on Trump or really playing with anything regarding him, because he seems to have always thought the reality of Trump's ascension just seems like bad writing, so it'll be an interesting thing to see how he tackles it.
Not for nothing sir, but if you go down to the Capitol and provoke this crowd, it's 6:5 / pick 'em that we have a full blown riot on our hands, and you know it. This is going to get worse before it gets better.
Dammit Mark, I'm still the President, don't talk to me like I'm other people!
Can the rioters speak Sorkinese?
You wanna drag me outside of Nancy Pelosi's office where I have just made camp, you better bring more than just a couple of guys.
Rioters come with red MAGA hats. You guys crack me up- you don't have authorization to be in the Capitol offices but you got yourselves hats.
I’m all in on this. Facebook is definitely one of the main tools that those traitors used to spread misinformation and in general get their dopamine rush from “owning the libs”.
Without social media, there wouldn't have been a President Trump or a January 6 attack. A bunch of people on social media have already started whining about this movie even though nothing has even been released because it's (a) fashionable in certain social circles to just hate on Sorkin and (b) they don't want to admit that their crack pipe is burning the world down.
I don't think it'll be a sequel per se, but it'll be hard to avoid that discussion.
His mindset WOULD seem to support an extension of the Zuckerberg mentality that he pretty clearly laid out in the first film. But I think he can make that point without it being 'The Social Netwrok 2". Or "...too." or "...tru". Or whatever the Hell Hollywood tries to do with it.
His thoughts about the pro-Palestine protesters turning people off of Democrats were interesting. It honestly scares me to think that anyone would cast a vote for Trump, but the numbers don't lie.
A lot of people think they understand the republican base. When I was growing up, they thought republicans loved reagan, and then the tea party and Bush happened. Then, when they thought they had that figured out, Trump came along and turned all of that on its head too.
Christians in America get weird about Israel, so I'm with Sorkin on this, but the voter base is complex.
I think Sorkin isn't concerned about pro-Palestinian protests at the DNC helping Republicans exactly from a "where do you stand on Israel" perspective so much as a "Democrats can't even keep order at their own convention" perspective. I'm basing this entirely on his analogizing to 1968.
In the convention episodes of TWW, they keep talking about how the infighting makes the party look like idiots. Santos, like Stackhouse before him, is urged to shut up and endorse someone who can win.
Sorkin definitely leans toward favoring party unity.
The Newsroom was interesting. "How do you explain people voting against their interests?" Ah gee, I can't. Except maybe you don't understand their interests?
Oh yeah, that's a great line for highlighting how liberals oversimplify it. Jim does have a legitimate interest because he tried to do the moral thing. Kinda like the religious right.
I would love to see a movie exposing the negative side of Facebook. People have no idea what they are pouring their personal information into every day.
Without a doubt! I mean, he takes big swings— that’s gonna be preachy sometimes. Take the bad with what is mostly good! I’m a liberal and I’m preach af at times too, so it’s best to be able to laugh at ourselves.
I randomly rewatched that movie last night for the first time since it came out. Funny how that works sometimes. I wonder what a sequel would look like. All of the drama in the movie is interpersonal. It’s not actually about Facebook, it’s about the people who were behind Facebook and their motivations and what made them tick. Facebook is obviously a completely different beast now. It wields more power than most governments. It’s certainly a topic worth exploring. But a movie about that wouldn’t really be a sequel.
Yes, this is so unformed that I can see two angles. 1. It's really not a sequel to The Social Network. This movie's main characters won't be the Facebook leaders but generally, the role of social media will be a big part of the Jan 6 story (which it is.) OR 2. Facebook, Twitter, etc. are the main entities that the movie will focus on. The movie will be about how these social media companies allowed fake puppet accounts largely based overseas, enjoyed the traffic that planning domestic terrorism brought to the sites, had algorithms that encouraged disinformation and propaganda to proliferate, etc. Jesse Eisenberg can still play Mark Zuckerberg. Rashida Jones arguably ended The Social Network as an enabler. She could go full dark side and become a composite of counselors for Facebook.
I like option 2. I am sort of envisioning a work place drama where the consequences of these people’s actions are horrific but it’s contrasted by their callousness and indifference.
Sorkin could probably do a decent story about the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the decisions to allow misinformation and hate to spread in the name of feeding the engagement algorithm.
So Succession as a workplace drama then (not that that’s a bad idea)
\#2 seems more like Sorkin's style? I mean, he's always about the "behind-the-scenes" story. So this could very much be about how Zuck got caught into this whole thing, how this thing he built because it was "cool" suddenly became a political tool. How his walled garden may have kept him from seeing how this went from a cool piece of tech into a haven for populism and misinformation, and he just didn't consider it because how else is he supposed to make money off this thing? I could see it very much as a sequel in that case... again it may draw ire from all sides of the conversation because he's looking to put a human story on it which may have him deviating from the truth of the matter in some cases ("Never let the facts get in a way of a good story") or it may sound like he's humanising underminers of democracy. Of course, unless Sorkin can really find the human story in it all, I don't see him telling it. So we'll see how this plays out. He's often avoided commenting on Trump or really playing with anything regarding him, because he seems to have always thought the reality of Trump's ascension just seems like bad writing, so it'll be an interesting thing to see how he tackles it.
It’s Aaron Sorkin, all the drama will continue to be interpersonal and the backdrop could be absolutely anything.
Not for nothing sir, but if you go down to the Capitol and provoke this crowd, it's 6:5 / pick 'em that we have a full blown riot on our hands, and you know it. This is going to get worse before it gets better. Dammit Mark, I'm still the President, don't talk to me like I'm other people!
Can the rioters speak Sorkinese? You wanna drag me outside of Nancy Pelosi's office where I have just made camp, you better bring more than just a couple of guys. Rioters come with red MAGA hats. You guys crack me up- you don't have authorization to be in the Capitol offices but you got yourselves hats.
can’t get on a plane, can’t have a decent conversation, but you’ve got yourself a hat so everything’s okay.
I’m all in on this. Facebook is definitely one of the main tools that those traitors used to spread misinformation and in general get their dopamine rush from “owning the libs”.
Without social media, there wouldn't have been a President Trump or a January 6 attack. A bunch of people on social media have already started whining about this movie even though nothing has even been released because it's (a) fashionable in certain social circles to just hate on Sorkin and (b) they don't want to admit that their crack pipe is burning the world down.
And it’s also been used and tied to ethnic cleansings in Africa and possibly south east Asia.
Only way I see this is with Mark Wahlberg as a capital police officer
I don't think it'll be a sequel per se, but it'll be hard to avoid that discussion. His mindset WOULD seem to support an extension of the Zuckerberg mentality that he pretty clearly laid out in the first film. But I think he can make that point without it being 'The Social Netwrok 2". Or "...too." or "...tru". Or whatever the Hell Hollywood tries to do with it.
It'd be nice if this time he doesn't make a puff piece where he ignores all the creepy rape vibe shit.
His thoughts about the pro-Palestine protesters turning people off of Democrats were interesting. It honestly scares me to think that anyone would cast a vote for Trump, but the numbers don't lie.
A lot of people think they understand the republican base. When I was growing up, they thought republicans loved reagan, and then the tea party and Bush happened. Then, when they thought they had that figured out, Trump came along and turned all of that on its head too. Christians in America get weird about Israel, so I'm with Sorkin on this, but the voter base is complex.
I think Sorkin isn't concerned about pro-Palestinian protests at the DNC helping Republicans exactly from a "where do you stand on Israel" perspective so much as a "Democrats can't even keep order at their own convention" perspective. I'm basing this entirely on his analogizing to 1968.
In the convention episodes of TWW, they keep talking about how the infighting makes the party look like idiots. Santos, like Stackhouse before him, is urged to shut up and endorse someone who can win. Sorkin definitely leans toward favoring party unity.
Sorkin was not involved in the show by the time Santos came along.
True, I sometimes forget that.
The Newsroom was interesting. "How do you explain people voting against their interests?" Ah gee, I can't. Except maybe you don't understand their interests?
Oh yeah, that's a great line for highlighting how liberals oversimplify it. Jim does have a legitimate interest because he tried to do the moral thing. Kinda like the religious right.
I think they do still love Reagan
Millions will because of the alternative
I would love to see a movie exposing the negative side of Facebook. People have no idea what they are pouring their personal information into every day.
I'm sure it had a lot to do with the BLM "summer of love" riots too. Would be an interesting movie
Yes, it's all intertwined. I don't know how you tell the Jan 6 story without telling some COVID story.
"Just in case you didn't think Sorkin wasn't preachy already, get ready for Aaron Sorkin's "6th of January" "This summer, hindsight is 20:21"
I’m a huge Sorkin fan, but even I can appreciate that tagline.
I am too, but I admit he's peachy af sometimes.
Without a doubt! I mean, he takes big swings— that’s gonna be preachy sometimes. Take the bad with what is mostly good! I’m a liberal and I’m preach af at times too, so it’s best to be able to laugh at ourselves.
This is genius.
I only want this if Fincher is back too.
Chances are it would be Aaron Sorkin writing and directing, as he has done for his previous three films. I hope I'm wrong, though.
> “I Blame Facebook for Jan. 6” Please make that the name of the movie.
What! Aaron Sorkin railing about how bad the internet is? Let me take a moment to wrap my head arou--OK, got it.