No I would not, why? Because I respect privacy, I understand the need for it, and I feel it's a good businessman's moral obligation to respect their customer base. I work in statistics, I usually have to go out and talk to people about touchy political subjects. I always read them my statement of privacy first (technically I have to when doing academic work) and have never used personal information for anything but analyzing social and political norms, and even then all subjects are anonymous. I respect my own privacy far too much to try and interfere with others'. That's why I'm not a hypocrite, and Zuckerberg is.punkrocker27 said:And you wouldn't if you had that kind of power?Blind Sight said:Someone who's also called his customers 'dumb fucks' because he openly shared their private information with friends of his who asked. Someone who has stated that he doesn't believe in privacy, yet refuses to publish his own private revenues due to hypocrisy. And don't give me crap about hating someone because they're rich. It doesn't factor in, what factors in is the way he treats his customer base. If it weren't for the fact that the majority of Facebook employees are rebellious little pro-privacy nuts, Zuckerberg would be selling information left and right.
I would say give the movie a shot because your problems with the film have nothing to with the actual film.The_root_of_all_evil said:Sorry, I'm with Canadamus on this. Whether or not it has anything to do with Bookface or not, it's still promoting it as something that's great.Scrumpmonkey said:That's a little childish, no one from facebook is even remotely involved in this movie. It has about as much financial links to facebook as Zodic or Seven do. That's like saying you will never see the godfather becuase you dissaprove of the Mafia.canadamus_prime said:I don't have to accept Timberlake as anything.
Also I still refuse to see this movie, mostly because I hate Facebook and don't want to have anything to do with it.
I like Ridley Scott. I don't like his Apple commercial - for exactly the same reasons.
This isn't a movie about Faceache, as Bob said, but it's a movie that promotes ideas embedded into it that are a social toxin - and is itself as much a social toxin as those god-awful Meet The Spartans.
It's about taking Nerds and making them Jocks - at its base. Letting the Jocks know what that Nerds are just Jocks with Social problems and Mental Muscles.
That's bullcrap; and I'm surprised that Bob supports this film. Perhaps there just have been too few good ones around recently.
This, as a film, is like Mazes & Monsters. It ignores what's actually happening to spoonfeed the idea to the audience that "These guys aren't so bad". I'd be surprised if their cute puppy dog wasn't called Zynga.
Sorry, apathy is always easier to show, and that means I won't be seeing this. You can quote me as "Oh you're so..." but, imho, this film is just showing sexualised fiction as history - and I don't go in for all that.
No, that's not it at all. So long as the film rights to Spider Man belong to Sony, Marvel can not get Spider Man and the Avengers into the same universe. The reboot will in no way help with this. The reason they're rebooting it is because Sam Raimi and Sony had vast disagreements over what to do with the film franchise, and rather than try to work out some kind of agreement, Sony decided 'fuck it, just fire the whole lot of them and we'll replace them all', and it's easier to replace everyone if they reboot it.Delock said:Probably because they're trying to reconnect the Marvel movies together, given that X-men, Spiderman, and a whole lot more would have some major problems interacting with each other when they finally combine them in the Avengers movie (think about this: How many of those movies were set in New York? How did all those heroes not interact with each other during the major incidents that occured in each movie (Magneto's giant mutation device, the mini sun Doc Ock made, etc.)?