What strikes me the most when reading this screenplay is that you have to be Aaron Sorkin or someone of commensurately high standing in the screenwriting community to get away with this, and that's not meant to sound like a snipe at all. It's a masterful screenplay. At the same time, this screenplay could easily be used as an example of what not to do, and should probably be viewed as such by aspiring scribes. Take the first scene: it's over eight pages long and features just two characters talking to each other in a bar. This is something you simply wouldn't get away with trying to break into the business with a spec screenplay. Two characters talking at length = stasis = death. Obviously it works here, and very well indeed, but I think it's fair to say a reader, going in cold, would not look favorably on a start like this, regardless of some crackling dialogue (the Stairmaster quip's a zinger). That goes for the script length, too. 163 pages is mammoth, regardless of the genre, and even if your screenplay moves as fast and fluidly as this one does, you probably wouldn't get out of the blocks turning in something of similar length. So the ironic takeaway is 'don't do what Aaron Sorkin does'.

Having read the script before and, of course, seen the movie, this time through the script, I specifically had a thought in mind I wanted to track as I went through the story: Comparing TSN to Citizen Kane. My conclusion? The comparison is a striking one. First each is a story of the rise to fame of an important cultural figure. In CK, the Protagonist [Charles Foster Kane] is loosely based on the life of William Randolph Hearst. In TSN, the Protagonist [Mark Zuckerberg] is an interpretation of the life events of the actual Mark Zuckerberg and the emergence of Facebook. Second there is the narrative structure: A story told in two time frames: The present and the past, bouncing back and forth between the two. In CK, there is Thompson, the reporter, who interviews [Present] a series of people with ties to Kane, each one a jumping off point to go back in time [Past] and recount an important, revealing episode of Kane's life. In TSN, there are the two court depositions [Present], each hitting key moments of contention and historical interpretation which create jumping off points to go back in time [Past] and recount an important, revealing episode of Zuckerberg's life. Third, both Protagonists are involved with media: Kane with newspapers, Zuckerberg with social media. Fourth, both Protagonists achieve enormous wealth: Kane inherits his, Zuckerberg gains his with the growth of Facebook. Fifth, the trajectory of each Protagonist's metamorphosis is negative. That is rather than achieve a state of wholeness or unity, as in most movies, these central figures end up in a state of disconnect [Zuckerberg] or dissolution [Kane]. Sixth, both Protagonists have an Attractor figure who grows to despise them: Susan Alexander Kane and Erica Albright. Seventh, both Protagonists have a Mentor figure who breaks with the P due to the P's obsessive, self-absorbed behavior: Jedidiah Leland and Eduardo Saverin. Eighth, both stories have a talisman with a powerful association to the past: In CK, it is the snow globe which takes Kane back to his elegiac past in Colorado, racing around without a care on his snow sled Rosebud. In TSN, it's Facebook itself, how in the very last scene, Zuckerberg 'friends' Erica, hearkening back to a simpler time when he actually had a girlfriend. Finally both men end their stories alone: Kane dying amidst the ruins of his empire, Zuckerberg having settled the various lawsuits, and left alone in a conference room, just he, his computer, Facebook and hitting "reload" on his friend request to Erica. These final images both point to a theme which the stories share, the Biblical verse [Matthew 16:26]: "What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?" I'm sure there are many more points of comparison, but one has to think Sorkin was inspired by CK in his approach to TSN.

Hi Scott and GITS, I thought the movie was fine but I love this script. Sorkin has a brilliant ability to establish character voice. MARKs ability to have two or three lines of thought in a single conversation is brilliant. I wonder if Sorkin had Eisenberg attached before he began adapting Mezrich’s book. I don’t think any other actor could have delivered the dialogue as it is on the page. Sorkin is also a master of visualization. This script is a visual treat. I hate the fact that he can do this with an economy of words in the Scene Descriptions and Actions. I read many scripts with novelistic language and that quickly becomes a drain. This is not only a fun read - it is a master class in drafting a dialogue driven script. Sorkin was certainly served by Ben Mezrich’s world building and research but the craft of Sorkin cannot be denied. This script has been in my library of must reads for some time and has influenced my own writing. Looking forward to the week and the Tweet-Cast on Wednesday. Cheers, Wes...

Vic, sounds like a wrist band waiting to happen for aspiring screenwriters: "Don't do What Aaron Sorkin Does!" Of course, you know that the studio was freaked out about the 163 page until Sorkin actually read it aloud with Fincher who timed it. Sure enough: 2 hours long. So as the story goes, Fincher went to bat for shooting the script as is, shoot it like an action movie, and that assuaged the studio's fears. And it clocks in at precisely 120 minutes.

Wes, I'm glad you brought up the script's scene description. Sorkin gets much, if not most credit for his expertise with dialogue, but this is just a well-written script on all levels. For example, here is how Sorkin introduces Zuckerberg: MARK ZUCKERBERG is a sweet looking 19 year old whose lack of any physically intimidating attributes masks a very complicated and dangerous anger. He has trouble making eye contact and sometimes it’s hard to tell if he’s talking to you or to himself. Bingo. You get the character in two lines of description. Now check out a handful of examples from scene description: P. 9: MARK’s fingers dance easily on the keyboard--like a Juilliard pianist warming up. P. 13: It’s on. Body shots. A couple making out in the corner. A matchbox gets slid open by perfectly manicured fingers that take out a few white pills. Two girls are dancing with each other and move into a kiss. P. 33: MARK gives a short shrug that says both “I don’t know” and “Fuck you” at the same time. The script is filled with entertaining and informative scene description, often editorializing to convey the moment. Any other examples of scene description that caught people's eye? See you Wednesday night for the Tweet-Cast, Wes!

youre right. I could just be slow, but it took about three times watching the movie to notice and unpack the meaning in "it would look like we are chasing the karate kid in a high school gym." The pace matters a lot in making this movie interesting...it assists thematically too because Facebook took off.

I remember being very excited about this film even early on when it was still shoehorned as 'the facebook movie' - a script by Sorkin to be directed by Fincher? Sold. But when I finally saw it in theaters I was blown away more than I thought possible. Mark, as a character, has very little likeability and does come off as an arrogant prick. One of the best lines in the movie is when Erica says, "But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole." And yet, thanks to the fabulous script and acting, we (at least I did) still found myself sypmathizing at the end. He's not a bad guy, he just doesn't know any better... and chooses not to. The script, as someone pointed out, is both a master class of what to do and what not to do, but still one of the 'must read' scripts out there. It really makes me hope Sorkin's upcoming Steve Jobs biopic is half as good as this. One last note, I still firmly believe this film should've won Best Picture. As good as The King's Speech was (and I did thoroughly enjoy it) it just seemed like the obvious and safe choice. I saw that film once, in theaters. I own the Social Network on Blu and watch it quite frequently. Really hope I can join the live tweetcast come Wednesday.

whereI can see all of the links for the Social Network Script ???

LAB, scroll up to the OP and you will see a link to download the script, legally from Sony Pics.

The Social Network is one of my favorite scripts & movies of all time. I've read & seen it countless times and I keep finding something new or different every read/watch. I agree with David above -- it would've gotten my vote for Best Picture. One of my favorite aspects of this script is how characters are introduced in the scene description. For example: "MARK ZUCKERBERG is a sweet looking 19 year old whose lack of any physically intimidating attributes masks a very complicated and dangerous anger. He has trouble making eye contact and sometimes it’s hard to tell if he’s talking to you or to himself. ERICA, also 19, is Mark’s date. She has a girl-next-door face that makes her easy to fall for. At this point in the conversation she already knows that she’d rather not be there and her politeness is about to be tested." Flawless. We get in two short paragraphs exactly who these people are, and as long as that first scene is, page-wise, it tells us so much about who Mark is and how he relates to people (he doesn't.) It also tells us what he wants (to distinguish himself, to be special, to be part of something great), and how that fits in with this world.

Hi Scott, What's the Script Reader consensus on Editorials these days? perhaps you can address this question in a tweetcast. Thanks Nayan

I suggest watching the movie with the director commentary and and the actor commentary. Very interesting.