The character of Mark is an interesting one. The real Mark wins a few points for the good humor with which he received the film and inevitable media interest. When asked what he felt was the biggest difference between the events he saw on screen (alongside 1,200 staff, having rented out a theater for the occasion) and what actually happened, he said that it stems from the fact that movie-makers can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.' No, Mark, it's not that the movie-makers (specifically Sorkin, in this instance) couldn't wrap their heads around this idea; it's that it would never work in a dramatic narrative. Sorkin claims that his screenplay is a very accurate account of the events depicted, but that's not actually very accurate. There was an Erica-type character at some point (i.e. an ex-girlfriend), a blog rant, mention made of farmyard animals, but Priscilla Chan was his girlfriend throughout the course of events depicted (and is now his wife). Sorkin's research encompassed Ben Mezrich's book, 'The Accidental Billionaires', written alongside the screenplay, information available in the public domain (i.e. the internet), transcripts from the court depositions and conversations with people who knew Mark. What he had to do with that information was create a narrative around the protagonist. His protagonist needed motivation on screen, and 'just liking building stuff' was never going to cut it. So he used dramatic license, because we, the audience, had to interpret his actions as deriving from something tangible. It couldn't be a matter of wanting to get rich - the real Zuckerberg doesn't seem particularly interested in money, but this would have been a poor dramatic choice: guy wants money, guy invents something, guy gets rich, happily ever after. For this to work as the tragedy it most definitely is, Mark had to be a victim of his own ambition. Zuckerberg (on screen) is a character mired by contradiction, innovating social media but unable to form and maintain close bonds with people. Erica's rejection of him fuels his need to prove himself to be somebody worth knowing, and without this fictional element the whole thing would have been a deck of cards pointed at high winds. What Sorkin did was employ one of the dramatist's sharpest tools - irony - to shape his protagonist's quest for Fool's Gold. All of which is a particularly long-winded way of saying that the real Mark Zuckerberg, as far as we can know who that is, wouldn't have made for as compelling a character as the one we meet on screen.

The hardest thing Sorkin had to do was make these characters likeable. In this day and age with the occupy momvent and anti wall street sentiment, how do we root for Zuckerberg or feel bad for Winklevoss twins or Saverin? These guys are millionaires. Is Zuckerberg a hero? Yes, in the Joseph Campbell idea of hero because he went through a journey, faced odds and came out on top in the end. But, can we relate? That's that's where good emotional writing comes into play, we see a side of Zuckerberg that makes us feel sorry for him---he can't connect socially one on one but wants desperately to join the Porcellian club because he wants to belong. Can we feel sorry for the Winklvi and Saverin? To some extent because they've been wronged and got revenge. And of course for the girl Erica, it's easy to feel her pain since everyone's been hurt by someone in their lives. Basically, Sorkin has found the balance between telling an interesting story and making his characters emotional and relate-able at least on a basic level.