His dedication should be to the story, but I have a big problem with the fact that he both wrote out and didn't address in that comment how many women programmers were involved with the start up and the fact that he completely wrote out mark's very intelligent and talented fiance who has been around since his days at harvard. I appreciate the story craft, but to act like he's just writing it that way because it's the whole truth is either a lie to cover his ass or he didn't do his research. And we all know he did his research. If he said cutting out all the women who helped mark make facebook happen made a better story, fine, but saying that they didn't exist on top of not including them is a pretty jerk move.

Here's a question... Haven't seen the film or read the script, but Sorkin said in his response he based much of the script on Zuckerberg's blogs...

How does that work?

Did he had to get the rights to use that material?

Anybody know?

Sorkin's job is to make the best story possible. If that means using female characters only to reflect the protag's mysogomy, fine. If that means Vince Vaughn referring to a car as 'gay', fine. If that means Tarantino using the N-word 50 times in his next film, fine. CREATE GOOD STORY. The PC police be damned.

What if the world isn't so misogynistic but he just portrayed it that way because it made for a better story?

Reality shouldn't even factor into the discussion. The true story of Facebook's creation might be super-dull. Maybe it was just a bunch of nerds competing to see who could write the best computer code. But to make it instead about these guys creating it as a means to avenge social rejection? That's drama baby. Always go with the drama.

"Reality shouldn't even factor into the discussion." - If reality isn't important than why did Sorkin use Mark Zuckerberg's blog post almost verbatim? I understand that a movie is going to bend the truth, but to say that things like facts and reality shouldn't get in the way is absurd. For one there many more important things in life than drama and movies. Many of the people portrayed in the film are still in their 20s who are going to have to deal with this portrayal for the rest of their lives (it's also not the most flattering portrayal of silicon valley). The way this film bends the truth reminds me how "The Star" runs phony stories to sell magazines. The next time actors and other people in Hollywood complain about the inaccuracies in tabloids they should think about the movies they make.

Find any movie that is "Based off a true story" and you'll find piles of fiction. Ever see Rudy? Go look at Joe Montana's comments about what really happened. See The Blind Side? Did Sandy's character really run out onto the practice field and tell Michael Oher to protect his QB's blind side? No, it never happened. But it makes for good drama so it was included in the film.

Sorkin used the blog entry because he made the dramatic choice to do so. The film is a blend of fact and fiction to create a strong piece that as a composite should be judge as a work of fiction. That's what "based off a true story" is.

"Find any movie that is "Based off a true story" and you'll find piles of fiction." - Just because other movies do it doesn't mean it's okay. There's also such things as degrees. For instance, when Sandy runs onto the field at practice in "The Blind Side", it's not a big stretch. But when "Cinderella Man" makes Max Baer out to be a brutal monster, why is that okay? For the sake of drama? Give me a break. Would it be okay for The Sun to run a story saying Russell Crowe cheated on his wife just because it's an interesting story? No. Also, Sorkin can't go around saying it's fictional and good storytelling, than go around defending it saying it's an accurate portrayal. He calls these people deeply misogynistic but what is that based on? His screenplay? The real life Zuckerberg has had the same girlfriend for the last six years, but of course there is no mention of her in the movie because that would get in the way of Zuckerberg's motivation in the film, Rooney Mara's character (she's a prize to be won in the movie, he'll create the largest social network on the planet and become the youngest billionaire in the world so he can obtain a woman). Look I understand it's a movie, and you want to make things cool and dramatic, but I don't think we should say things like 'let's not let the facts get in the way'.

As a chick who went to a university with a skull and bones (ie, replete with the culture described in Social Network), Sorkin's depiction of that world read entirely true. My takeaways from script, goddamn that man can write, and what a story, and that it came from transcripts and actual events, even more impressive.

I was surprised when accusations of misogyny flew. Umm, no. A different telling would have required different folk, in a different story. For this story to explore tangential details like the smart women (and there are many) at Harvard and in programming (shout out to original hot code chick Ada Lovelace) and at Facebook, a much longer story/movie would have been required, the kind of long movie people don't go to see (unless it's from James Cameron).

You know what, if some chicks have a problem with the script/film, then they know what to do...tell us their story.

Haven't seen movie yet but have just read the first 25 pages of the script where Mr Sorkin breaks every rule in the book. Voiceover...no big wide glamorous opening shot that hints at the theme... dazzling dialogue between two heads that goes on for 8 and a half pages. Oh well, when you're that big you can do what you want, eh? How fabulous.

I've repeatedly had this debate with a couple of female screenwriters who are friends of mine.

One of them complained to me that the original Prime Suspect and today's Sons of Anarchy were sexist TV series due (in part) to the majority of the characters being men, who treated women in a derogatory manner.

I disagreed, saying Prime Suspect was about a female detective battling the sexism that was part of the macho culture in 1980s Metropolitan Police, and Sons of Anarchy is about a biker gang - a culture in which women are treated as property of the men - so removing the sexism from both settings would damage the story.

My view is that the screenwriter's duty is to the story. More so if it's based on actuality - like The Social Network.

If screenwriters start making alterations to the reality their stories are based in - such as ensuring there's an even split of women and men in everything they write, even when it can't be justified by a story's setting, they're not writing stories any more: they're writing propaganda.

Sorry, but could anyone post the link to the screenplay please? :)

I think in Sorkin's response he's trying to have it both ways, and I don't think "make the best story possible" is an adequate response either.

The best story possible, in my experience, is one where all of the characters are real. And with the exception of Erica, none of the characters are real. The women are either sexual prizes or they are there to gently impart knowledge (Rashida-easy-on-the-eyes-Jones).

It's a little precious for Sorkin to claim that he was exposing the culture of misogyny--after seeing the movie last night, it's as much the case that he's reinforcing it.

Erica's character sets up a story in which the male characters' inability to emotionally connect drives them to vast achievements, but it doesn't undercut the premise that only men could make those achievements.

Leaving the theater, I said to my wife, "If it wasn't bad enough that all the female characters were stupid, did it have to be the case that all the stupid characters were female?"

Scott, I think this statement of yours bears unpacking:

Sorkin isn't saying misogyny is good or bad (although one would have to think on a personal level he's in the latter camp), in terms of this story, he's simply acknowledging that it was: an aspect of the group-think among the key characters.

Perhaps this can be laid on Fincher as much as Sorkin, but the visual use of female bodies in the film is standard Hollywood titillation and decoration. I found nothing to suggest a critical take.

Sorkin says "the men (boys) at the final clubs think it's what they deserve for being who they are". Replace "at the final clubs" with "in the theater" -- they're a gift to the male viewer more than a criticism of the characters on the screen.