I suppose in a TexAgs movie, each forum would be its own movie!

Imagine the Politics and Old Rivalries chapters? Yikes!

For the record, there was absolutely ZERO drama, and Redstone and I are on good terms. I appreciate staff's explanation for the edit/non-edit, but they keep deleting posts in which I explain the lack of drama, which only causes people to comment more on the "drama."

Once again, literally all I said in the OP was, "Not to sound like Redstone, but..." (the same joke made on this board daily) and that somehow created a firestorm, not among anyone here, but between us and staff. Redstone and I cleared the air, which for some reason was also deleted, but just FYI, we're 100% fine. I hate that people keep thinking something major went down when absolutely nothing did.

I think the continuous explanations are creating more appearance of drama. Just let it go. Likely to get deleted again anyway.

Would they include the Winklevoss and Bitcoin

I'm sure there'd at least be a reference.

Amusing how IRL Eduardo was both not that big a deal at the start-up, and how his conduct of business was and has been....interesting, shall we say.

Biggest bit of disconnect in the film.

I missed out. I'd be interested to see what they would decide to cover, as a lot of interesting things have happened since where the movie left off.

I could see not being interested in the movie on the surface, it's not the most exciting sounding source material. I thought it was great, personally.

Are TCTTS and Redstone the same person? Jeckyl/Hyde? Clark Kent / Superman?

I'm sure this has been discussed, but Redstone has got to be someone's second account. We have no problem with multiple personalities.

Nope. 2 Ag tags.

Same account since Spring '99, Blocker computer lab. I've partied with other posters at a tailgate.

Redstone said:

---

Nope. 2 Ag tags.

Same account since Spring '99, Blocker computer lab. I've partied with other posters at a tailgate.

---

I knew about blocked before texags was on the prowl

Not sure why people thought the movie was so great. I guess it's an interesting story just because of FB, but Jesse Eisenberg is almost unwatchable.

third coast.. said:

---

No i just never ever got the appeal. I think it's ridiculous and have zero plans on watching it ever. Same with Jobs or whatever it was. Those just dont appeal to me. I watched the google knockoff The Circle and it was absolutely terrible. I dont know, this stuff just doesn't move the needle for me at all. Oh well, to each their own.

---

Have you watched "The Founder" about Ray Crock (founder of McDonald's)?

Another great story of a regular guy setting his sights on a vision to create an empire.

To answer OPs question, yes, I think if there was a real story to be told I'd watch a sequel.

And agree that the Social Network is a great film.

Mr.NiceGuy said:

---

Not sure why people thought the movie was so great. I guess it's an interesting story just because of FB, but Jesse Eisenberg is almost unwatchable.

---

He was literally nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for this movie.

There are head-scratchers almost every year, so...

YES.

It's weird... since the original (which released exactly ten years ago this week, btw), the real-life Zuckerberg has proven to be perhaps even more cunning and despicable than the movie portrayed. Yet Eisenberg's portrayal feels less accurate - strictly in terms of Zuckerberg's now-infamous, android-like public persona - the more we've gotten to know the real Zuckerberg since. In other words, to me at least, they almost feel like two different people, and I wonder how they reconcile that in a sequel.

That said, the potential, plot-wise, is so rich with everything that's happened since, I have zero doubt Sorkin will be able to write a scorching, worthy follow-up. It may not be as intimate/personal, but that's probably for the better. I think you take the sequel in a completely different direction - make it a different type of movie altogether - and don't even try to compete with the original.

West Point Aggie said:

---

I suppose in a TexAgs movie, each forum would be its own movie!

Imagine the Politics and Old Rivalries chapters? Yikes!

---

Politics would be a snuff film.

If they get the whole band back together, I say do it. I would never have thought the first movie would be good on premise alone...the only reason I saw it was it was Fincher. I watched it again earlier this year, still pretty damn close to perfect. I didn't use any social media then, and I don't now either, but I'll be there opening night for these guys.

The one thing I'm curious about is source material. The first movie was based in some degree on the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich. Also, lots of details from all the legal proceedings. Have there been any specific books come out over the last few years about Zuckerberg/Facebook that he could be looking as source material?

Perhaps if Fincher and Sorkin do another film the academy can remedy their mistake of not giving The Social Network best director and best film. Has anyone seen The King's Speech a second time???

So it looks like Sorkin would at least partially base the sequel on Roger McNamee's 2019 book, Zucked. Not only that, but he's already met with McNamee about adapting it. Here's the official synopsis...

Quote:

---

If you had told Roger McNamee even three years ago that he would soon be devoting himself to stopping Facebook from destroying our democracy, he would have howled with laughter. He had mentored many tech leaders in his illustrious career as an investor, but few things had made him prouder, or been better for his fund's bottom line, than his early service to Mark Zuckerberg. Still a large shareholder in Facebook, he had every good reason to stay on the bright side. Until he simply couldn't.

ZUCKED is McNamee's intimate reckoning with the catastrophic failure of the head of one of the world's most powerful companies to face up to the damage he is doing. It's a story that begins with a series of rude awakenings. First there is the author's dawning realization that the platform is being manipulated by some very bad actors. Then there is the even more unsettling realization that Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg are unable or unwilling to share his concerns, polite as they may be to his face.

And then comes the election of Donald Trump, and the emergence of one horrific piece of news after another about the malign ends to which the Facebook platform has been put. To McNamee's shock, even still Facebook's leaders duck and dissemble, viewing the matter as a public relations problem. Now thoroughly alienated, McNamee digs into the issue, and fortuitously meets up with some fellow travelers who share his concern, and help him sharpen its focus. Soon he and a dream team of Silicon Valley technologists are charging into the fray, to raise consciousness about the existential threat of Facebook, and the persuasion architecture of the attention economy more broadly -- to our public health and to our political order.

Zucked is both an enthralling personal narrative and a masterful explication of the forces that have conspired to place us all on the horns of this dilemma. This is the story of a company and its leadership, but it's also a larger tale of a business sector unmoored from normal constraints, just at a moment of political and cultural crisis, the worst possible time to be given new tools for summoning the darker angels of our nature and whipping them into a frenzy. Like Jimmy Stewart in Rear Window, Roger McNamee happened to be in the right place to witness a crime, and it took him some time to make sense of what he was seeing and what we ought to do about it. The result of that effort is a wise, hard-hitting, and urgently necessary account that crystallizes the issue definitively for the rest of us.

---

Honestly, this sounds incredible. McNamee as the main character/protagonist, Zuckerberg/Sandberg the antagonists, and it's a reckoning/whistleblower story of sorts, partially set against the backdrop of the 2016 election.

I need this movie ASAP.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/aaron-sorkin-would-like-to-write-social-network-sequel

Inadvertently answered your question above while writing up my post as you were posting yours.

Good to know, Sorkin having a distinct point of view/source material to draw from excites me more. That should make it easier on him to write a compelling narrative.

What is this supposed to be about? I guess it can be okay? I thought a lot of the charm of the Social Network was the fact it was an origin story.

Eisenberg is a weird one for me. I do not think he is a very good actor, but I find myself liking many movies he is in (I can think of about 7 of them). Granted, the movies I like him in are generally ones where he plays a socially awkward person, so it doesn't distract from the movie. I cannot picture him in any other role and don't think he has the range to pull anything else off.

The likely plot synopsis is four posts up.

I thought they already made this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Circle_(2017_film)

Hope remains...

Somebody call David Fincher. We're inching closer to #TheSocialNetwork sequel.

"I think what has been going on with Facebook these last few years is a story very much worth telling, and there is a way to tell it as a follow up," said Aaron Sorkin: https://t.co/6xBslzyOFP pic.twitter.com/xjM3EKgRuj

— IndieWire (@IndieWire) November 13, 2021