i thought two years would be enough time for people to realize that the social network was a big ball of suck, but if the #film tag is any indication, that is not the case
Posts tagged the social network.
“Even before the epidemic of Internet theft, the business of producing and distributing independent movies was notoriously tough. The margins are much thinner for indies than for large, big budget studio productions and, thus, the impact of piracy can be much more pronounced on the bottom line of smaller movies. So what is a very serious and damaging threat to the major studios can often be a matter of life and death for either a small-budget or even a mid-range film.
Besides, the difference in the impact of Internet theft on movies isn’t proportional to the costs of the movie. So, for example, a big studio production such as Avatar, which cost around $500 million to make, has, according to the Bay Area-based tracking service BayTSP, been illegally downloaded on eDonkey and BitTorrent 13 million times, while a medium budget movie such as The Social Network, which cost $40 million to make has been downloaded 9 million times over the last six months. The superhero movie Kick-Ass, which cost around $30 million to make and collected $48 million at the domestic box office (that’s only $24 million to the studio after the exhibitor’s share), sold approximately 6.1 million tickets. Meanwhile, according to TorrentFreak, it was the second-most downloaded movie in 2010, with 11.4 million downloads worldwide. The comparison between Avatar and Kick-Ass is particularly instructive: the medium budget movie cost 15 percent of the big studio production, but suffered almost as many illegal downloads, crippling its chances to recoup its investment.
Another instructive example is the critically acclaimed The Hurt Locker, which cost $15 million to produce and came in ninth on the TorrentFreak 2010 list with almost 7 million downloads. Its overall worldwide box office was a disappointing $49 million, despite winning a DGA Award and an Oscar for best picture and best director. Given the dramatic impact of Internet theft on this small budget indie, it’s the difference between a profitable movie and breaking even, between financial success and failure.”
What industry professionals really think about Internet piracy. Fascinating read.
Take a look at all that’s going on in the image above. Who is talking? What are the relationships between the characters? How much is packed into this one frame?
Since it came out last fall, I’d almost forgotten what an exhilarating information-overload experience David Fincher’s “The Social Network” is. Cut and composed and performed with breathless, jittery speed, it’s a movie that consists of virtually nothing but conversations in rooms (the attempted, missed, short-circuited, coded connections that struck me when I first saw it). It’s action-packed — enough to give you whiplash, watching all the elements interacting within the2.40:1 widescreen frame — even though there are no “action sequences” (car chases, shootouts, fist fights, acrobatic stunts, etc.); the filmmaking is charged with energy without falling back on today’s routinely frenetic, handheld run-and-gun/snatch-and-grab camerawork (the camera is generally mounted on a tripod; when it moves, it’s on a crane or a dolly — often for establishing shots or a shift in perspective that brings a new element into the frame). Smart, quick, efficient.
No one makes me appreciate The Social Network like Jim Emerson. I think I enjoy his scene-by-scene, line-by-line breakdowns of the movie more than I enjoy the movie. I’ve noticed my relationship with TSN is rather unconventional: I respond more to the criticism (negative, positive, and analytical) of the film than ever did to the 4/5 times I’ve actually watched it. It doesn’t do anything for me emotionally. Intellectually, however…
Yes, I am very disappointed about Best Picture. But I am just stunned that David Fincher didn’t win, just absolutely stunned. This just proves it is all about campaigning and nothing else. It’s just a popularity contest.
Full article here
"Just a popularity contest?" What are you, 14? I doubt Mr. Spacey was as disparaging when he won his own Oscar. What a tasteless and silly thing to say to a reporter. Four out of five nominees will lose. It happens. But comments like this are so petty. The Oscars are always worthless when someone you support loses and always the most important thing in the world when someone you support wins. Keep it classy, Kevin Spacey.
He’s having the worst awards season ever.
Excellent little piece on the music in The Social Network, a film that has a soundtrack and score far and away stronger than the picture on a whole.
I’ve see it four (maybe five?) times now, and that’s what I keep coming back to: Meh.
Not every movie is for everyone and this one was for a lot of people, but not for me.
Armie Hammer sounds a lot like Jon Hamm
I have to say, it’s rather aggravating that David Fincher’s commentary is censored.
2011 BAFTA film brochure illustrated by Adam Simpson
Cancel the office pool. Forget the Vegas bookmakers, who still think that a certain Facebook movie is the odds-on favorite. And if you’re looking for a cliffhanger on Sunday, Feb. 27, you may as well watch Big Love on HBO, because there won’t be much suspense over on ABC at the 83rd award ceremony of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In all likelihood, the Oscar race is over.
And the Best Picture winner is … The King’s Speech. Why? Because they love it.
For almost two months, since the film-critics groups started handing out their year-end citations in early December, it’s been received wisdom that Colin Firth, Natalie Portman, Christian Bale and Melissa Leo (or Hailee Steinfeld) would take the acting trophies for The King’s Speech, Black Swan and The Fighter (or True Grit); that Toy Story 3 would be Best Animated Feature; and that The Social Network, which won in 25 of the 30 critics’ polls, would be named Best Picture. The New York Film Critics Circle, for example, seemed to agree with the film’s writer, Aaron Sorkin, who called The Social Network “the Citizen Kane of John Hughes movies”; they gave it the same Best Film award they’d presented to Orson Welles’s trailblazing effort nearly 70 years before. And though the other predictions are still applicable, the critics’ consensus on Best Picture suddenly doesn’t look as if it will transfer to the Oscars.
What happened? The professionals overruled the amateurs. Critics may have some expertise in the field they cover, but not one reviewer is a voting member of the Academy (which number some 6,000 members). There is, however, a significant overlap between Academy voters and members of the biggest Hollywood guilds. The same people, at least the same kinds of people, constitute the electorate. And in the last two weeks, three of those elite clubs — the Producers Guild of America (PGA) as well as the Directors Guild (DGA) and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) this past weekend — chose The King’s Speech over The Social Network for their highest honor. In just nine days, these three guilds had established a new and prohibitive favorite, which the Academy validated Tuesday morning by lavishing 12 Oscar nominations on the Royal Family drama, to just eight for the Mark Zuckerberg bio-pic.
These votes are often clear barometers to the later Oscar totals. The Actors Guild is the least reliable (only seven times in the previous 15 years) but often a bellwether. In 2006, SAG surprised the movie world by naming Crash, not Brokeback Mountain, for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture — Guild lingo for Best Picture — and a few weeks later Crash snagged the top Oscar, despite being the outsider to Ang Lee’s movie in the eyes of the bookmakers. The PGA winner has prefigured the Best Picture Oscar-winner in each of the last three years (though, the three years before that, it didn’t). And in the 61 years since the DGA got on the same calendar as the Academy, its prize has coincided with the Oscar for Best Director all but six times, and for Best Picture all but 11 times. They get it right 82% of the time.
That is, if “right” means accurately forecasting the Oscar winner. By standards of quality, the DGA’s choice of Tom Hooper, director of The King’s Speech, over The Social Network’s David Fincher is indefensible. Hooper manages his principal players (Firth, Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter) expertly enough, but forces the supporting actors into caricature. His camera style is stodgy, his handling of a delicate subject lurid but not invigorating. He’ll do anything — peel onions — to make his audience cry. He commits all the sins of omission and commission that Fincher avoids. And this is one more reason The King’s Speech will triumph on Oscar night: because, if mediocre work wins once in Hollywood’s official circles, it tends to keep on winning.
When The King’s Speech had its world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival in September, I pointed out the ways in which, by coincidence or cynicism, the movie followed virtually every rule of a Best Picture winner. It’s a bio-pic of a real person; it is set on or near World War II, with Hitler’s shadow looming; it dramatizes a man’s heroic struggle over some physical or psychological infirmity; and it’s got oodles of those classy British actors. Other Academy watchers noticed the same thing: Steve Pond, resident Oscar savant of the industry website The Wrap, predicted a Best Picture win before he had even seen it. And it would be odd indeed if the people the movie was designed for — the senior Hollywood professionals who vote on the Oscars — didn’t go for it.
What’s the matter, then, with The Social Network? Its pace is snappier, its IQ way higher, its ambitions greater, its subject more modern. It also believes there’s no crying in a Facebook film. It doesn’t give the audience a strong hero to root for. These are all attributes, not liabilities, in this movie — but not in a movie that wins Best Picture. The Social Network’s Mark Zuckerberg might earn the envy of viewers, but Firth’s George VI wins their sympathy. Like a lot of moviegoers, the Academy members go for heart over head, warm over cool. And in the race for the ultimate Oscar, given the choice of a film they respect and one they love, they’ll take love every time.
The examples are legion. The soppy Going My Way won Best Picture over the misanthropic Double Indemnity (1945); My Fair Lady was chosen over Dr. Strangelove (1965); The Sound of Music over Darling (1966); In the Heat of the Night over Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate (1968); The Sting over The Exorcist and Cries and Whispers (1974); Rocky over All the President’s Men, Bound for Glory, Network and Taxi Driver (1977); Ordinary People over Raging Bull (1981); Chariots of Fire over Reds (1982); Driving Miss Daisy over Born on the Fourth of July (1990); Dances With Wolves over Goodfellas (1991); Titanic over L.A. Confidential (1998); and Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan (1999).
There’s one more salient example, from the Oscar race in 1942. A widely praised film about a wayward media mogul — with genius galore, but no central sympathetic character — was up against a sentimental, well-wrought family drama set in the United Kingdom. The first movie earned all the respect, the second made people cry. And in the end, the family drama, How Green Was My Valley, won Best Picture over Citizen Kane.
In Oscar voting, as in old Hollywood weepies, sentiment trumps sense, and love conquers all. The King’s Speech makes Academy members cry. And that’s why the race is over.
What’s important to remember here is that history isn’t written by Oscar. These “better” pictures aren’t forgotten. I mean, tell me: how many Ordinary People gifs do you see floating around the interwebs? Chill, everybody. Think of it this way, the more “sure things,” the greater your chance to win Ebert’s money.