I think the ideal Lois Lane would have been Courtenay Cox circa 1990s in Scream mode. She’s like a sexier and more sympathetic version of Margot Kidder.

Your casting would have been so much better: Parker Posey for Lois Lane and Peta Wilson for Lex’s moll.

I think it’s possible to see them either way (relatively fair-minded and conscientious, or entitled and lacking in initiative), but the point is that they were never portrayed as crass or as obnoxious as Zuckerberg.

That is unfortunate, but from my personal perspective, it doesn’t hurt in terms of entertainment value.

Yes, I’m sure Aaron Sorkin, a Jew, was shooting for that precise dynamic.

Sure, but Avengers 4 hasn’t even come out yet.

Thank you.

I wonder how does Bucky feels about this?

I can’t help with the ‘boring’ part, but I think Eisenberg is meant to be off-putting in this role.

Putting you on the spot here, but if not The Social Network, what are the defining films of the decade?

True, but even within their particular niche there are subtle differences. Cera tends to give off a more hapless, self-effacing vibe in contrast to Eisenberg who often brings an underlying calculation and smart-aleck truculence to his characters.

Bullshit!

I’m sure that was simply an error on bfred’s part, but something I’ve noticed of late is that the way people use social class is becoming increasingly meaningless. Today people seem to use ‘working-class’ to refer to anyone who doesn’t have a six-figure trust fund.

It’s a shame that filmmakers struggle to portray social awkwardness, instead favouring obnoxiousness and narcissism. I don’t know if the fictional Zuckerberg is more ‘complex’ than the real one, but the real one certainly seems much more sympathetic, and I say that as someone who loathes Facebook, and the influence and…

If the film tells a great story, and it encourages you to go and do some further research to parse the truth from the embellishment, isn’t that a good thing?

I love the film. It’s my favourite of 2010 (far superior to tepid The King’s Speech). But I do find it odd that Sorkin did not take the opportunity to play-up, or even accurately depict, the Winklevoss Twins as entitled bluebloods rather than the honourable noblesse oblige types we ended up with in the film.

I dislike the film but Eisenberg’s nervous, twitchy, teary Luthor is my #1 issue with that movie.

I assumed the 50% that disintegrated were Thanos’s work, but that everything that occurred as a consequence was entirely out of his hands, so to speak.

Question: assuming Thanos’ finger-snap is reversed and the 50% of the universe that disintegrated come back, will that include all the poor folk in the other 50% who died as a consequences of a helicopter smashing into their apartment or their plane falling from the sky due to its pilot no longer existing?

Did Sam say that?