JoniB22 at 2014-06-09 09:10:25:

Reading this...in mere minutes you know you're in the hands of a master. I've read this script several times, seen the movie at least a dozen times. Whenever I flip around channels and it's on, I'll stick and watch. Why? Oh, so many reasons... which are why I adore this script: --sharp, smart, terse, witty, stinging, memorable, bantering dialogue --a protagonist who, at first blush, isn't at all likable but who, somehow, grows on you in some strange way. not that i necessarily "side with" or "cheer for" Mark -- not at all. But I CARE. Meaning, I wanna know how this all goes. Even after reading/viewing this a bunch of times, I wanna see what I missed, like I wanna watch him in action again and again, marvel at his brilliance, his coldness, his stubborn resolve. He's quite a character.... --the relationship with Eduardo...where Mark becomes (is) also our villain... the grief Eduardo takes from him is staggering --- the barbs sharp. but he's such a great guy, Eduardo, I mean... hanging in.... it's a strange, cool, ugly, roller-coaster dynamic to see play out between these two. --the phenomenal way in which Sorkin structures this story. i.e. the back and forth from history-up-to and the-deposition-room. I don't even mind we're spoonfed the nugget "Mark's a different person in these flash-forward scenes" -- it puts me where I need to be in few words and from there on, I "get" the structure.... --the crescendo of "battle" with the Winklevoss boys, et all. how this builds to explosion level is awesome. And entertaining! --what's fascinating to me is even though a fair portion of this story is people sitting around in a room talking (deposition), there is nothing boring about it. at all. those engagements in that room, the escalation of tension in there, the darts thrown -- great. --this may sound silly, but one thing I love is how this stayed PG-13. Considering the college-age/setting, etc., plenty of room to go R with language and whatever ... but it wasn't necessary. We "got" the flavor of what we needed when we needed it. Great choice! --so many smart "little moments".... like when Dustin's query in the computer lab launches Mark's idea for "relationship status".... when Divya's hanging at a capella practice and finds the site, and tries to leave and trips how many times? The doorknob scene. Heck, it's just cool I can say "the doorknob scene" and people should know what I'm referencing. the line "He owned Mark after that night." Holy crap... Sean's flinch when Eduardo holds back a punch and Eduardo's fab line following. I could go on and on... I'm a massive dialogue fan --- I'll take witty banter and exchanged barbs over car chases and gun battles six days a week and seven times on Sundays, so I LOVED this!! And yet, the action lines were so fantastic -- smart. Suck me in smart. Like p. 107 with the Crimson and the crate and the phrasing of "--wait for it --" Like someone TELLING me the story. Love that too. Granted, it's all a little sparse and devoid of action/description thru most of this, and perhaps not the best "lesson" for those of us who aren't quite in the game yet, but still, it worked for me. And I think one LESSON I did take from this, what with all its dialogue, is to just write freakin' great dialogue and let actors run with it. When I read novice scripts, there's soooooo much stage direction and sooooo many parantheticals, it's crazytown. This helps me see that's not necessary.

Scott at 2014-06-09 12:46:06:

Thanks for that great take, Joni, and glad we included TSN as a particular favorite of yours. In some ways, citing a Sorkin script is akin to a Tarantino script, at least as far as a learning experience goes for an aspiring screenwriting. Tarantino's post-modern sensibilities at which he's so good executing are a huge challenge for most writers, novice on up. Similarly with Sorkin who is such a great wordsmith, particularly with dialogue. And yet it is important to read these 'masters' as well and try to come away more inspired than humbled. A few things off your comments: * As you note, Mark's character is not terribly "likable," yet he serves as a terrific Protagonist figure because he is so compelling. It helps, of course, that he is an iteration of the real Mark Zuckerberg, whom we all know, most of us kind of directly through our use of Facebook. Plus the whole multi-billionaire thing, which is pretty fascinating in and of itself. But beyond that, Sorkin makes sure to work a few dynamics that underscore Mark's compelling persona, even if not likable. (1) Most everyone can relate to that feeling of being left out / wanting to fit in, and probably at a deeply infantile level, experiences throughout our youth, so that emotional pang Mark feels is probably pretty universal. (2) The wish fulfillment of living life as part of the 1%, what would that be like. We get to see a version of that roller coaster ride through Mark's experience. So despite Mark not being your typical Hollywood likable guy, the script provides several access points to the characters that results in our buy-in. * To me, the single smartest thing Sorkin did was use those dual depositions as a device to seamlessly weave a narrative, back and forth in time. It is akin to a similar device used in Citizen Kane - the reporter visiting a variety of intimates in Kane's life - and I think that decision on Sorkin's part was intentional for many reasons, one of which is that TSN is very much like Citizen Kane. My guess is Sorkin realized this in the substance of the narrative content and when he hit on the deposition idea, it just fit like hand in glove. * You mention action / scene description. Interesting people obsess over Sorkin's dialogue, but his SD is every bit as strong. Lean yet visually dynamic, tight yet not averse to editorializing to heighten the entertainment -- "wait for it" -- Sorkin's use of SD in TSN creates a perfect framework for the dialogue. One thing I'd like to add to your observations and that's the story's central theme which in my view is this: The irony that a guy who makes bazillions of dollars on an online platform based on creating connections between people is himself largely incapable of achieving authentic interpersonal connections. Or shorter: Mark can create a social network while he is basically antisocial. The deeper psychological subtext there is Mark is a guy who just wants to be loved, again like Kane in Citizen Kane. Sorkin hit on that theme early on (I'm guessing) when researching / observing the Facebook phenomenon, and never wavered in knowing that was his central touchstone throughout the story-crafting process. It's why the very last scene is absolutely pitch perfect -- one of the richest young men in the world, reduced to friending an ex-GF... and hitting Refresh... Refresh... Refresh. In Biblical terms, he has gained the Kingdom... but lost his Soul. One cautionary note: If any of us mere mortals write a 163 page script, we would likely not get a fair reading and almost assuredly see said script end up in recycling bin. Even the studio had to be convinced by Fincher, who himself had to be convinced by having Sorkin actually read the script aloud (he claimed it was a 2 hour movie) with Fincher timing it... and it did, indeed, come out to 2 hours. We don't have that luxury. Maybe down the road after we achieve some degree of success, we can kerplop a 160 page opus onto our rep's virtual desk. Until then, best to avoid going over 120 (not a rule, just some advice). Thanks again, Joni, for your comments. It's a terrific script on many levels and a surprisingly quick read.