Talk:The Social Network

Tarantino

Put simply: Are Quentin Tarantino's views on this film appropriate for inclusion? As far as I know, he's not known for being a film critic, nor does he have any connection with this film. DonIago (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure many directors have opinions about other films. I don't see the need to report them, unless the opinion is remarkable for some other reason worthy of noting (ie, the person came out of hiding to make a remark, or the film is about them and they hated it, etc) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it depends on the film. For some films, the reception of non-critics could be included. Like here, how tech-industry commentators perceive the film would be relevant. Tarantino doesn't fit that. If a film had a mix of different kinds of non-critics responding to this film, maybe Tarantino could be in that mix. To just include him would seem misplaced. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there's an entire section of the New Beverly Cinema website that's dedicated to Tarantino's reviews of various films. Regardless, Tarantino is a filmmaker, and filmmakers routinely critique others' works. When a filmmaker bestows a particular superlative on a given film, and that filmmaker is as prominent as Tarantino, then such an honor merits mention. So, in addition to actually critiquing others' works, Tarantino deserves to be mentioned because he's a consequential filmmaker who is singling out this particular film. The man isn't an expert on World War II either, but the fact that he named Dunkirk his second favorite film of the decade is mentioned in the article for that page (and rightfully so). The same goes for David Lynch's love of Lolita, Terrence Malick's love of Zoolander and Smokin' Aces, etc. When an important filmmaker praises another director's work using superlative language, then that praise ought to be included in that film's article. PresidentSquidwardTentacles (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"filmmakers routinely critique others' works" is all the reason not to include Tarantino's comments. We don't want to suggest than any filmmaker's opinion is worth noting. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

My point is that Tarantino's opinion is superlative in nature. Limiting the issue of reception to critics is myopic, especially when filmmakers often play the same role as critics. There's a reason why Sight & Sound polls both critics and directors. Additionally, it is customary for the "Reception" section to include the opinions of critics AND filmmakers, especially when the filmmakers offer perspectives that are superlative in nature. Including Tarantino's comments would be in keeping with Wikipedia tradition. And if you find other prominent filmmakers who've commented on the film or spoken highly of it, then include them, too. PresidentSquidwardTentacles (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a logic thought, no dog-in-this-fight. The phrase "Critical response" does not necessarily mean "a response by a paid film critic such as a Siskel or Ebert", it can mean the same as "critique". As to Tarantino, he's about as close to an actual paid film critic as one can get without being one. An early claim to fame was his critiquing of films for customers at the video rental store where he clerked ("such a movie buff. He had so much knowledge of films that he would try to get people to watch really cool movies.") In later years, as a director, many of his published interviews have him commenting and critiquing the films that influence him or his current projects. As one of the more celebrated directors, and known for his critiquing, his opinion may count more? But perhaps as ZimZalaBim states, it would have to be a remarkable opinion, or one with detail, rather than just one singing praises? Eg. Filmmaker George Lucas stated, "...in my opinion, The Rise of Skywalker makes my THX 1138 effort look like Citizen Kane in comparison..." 😉 Regards. – ░▒▓ №∶72.234.220.38 (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC) ▓▒░

Tarantino's reviews of a number of films are available on the New Beverly Cinema website. He's undoubtedly more well-versed in cinema than a number of paid critics, especially the guy at Esquire (who I'm sure is probably a nice guy). PresidentSquidwardTentacles (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion about whether Tarantino is "more well-versed" than paid critics. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't have an issue with referencing Tarantino in general. It's about referencing him in a way that can fit the article. For all intents and purposes, "Critical response" or "Critical reception" is about how critics responded to the film or how they received it. They review films as a matter of routine, and such sections are generally expected to summarize that. Sometimes a film has particular subject matter that draws responses from people other than film critics, and that can be its own section or subsection. A film director saying something about a film can look like a one-off because that kind of thing happens on occasion. So for referencing Tarantino, I'd rather see him grouped with other non-critics responding to the film, like The New Republic and Harvard Business Review. An alternative approach is to make "Impact" into a "Legacy" section where Tarantino's opinion could fit. However, I would not mention Tarantino in the lead section at this time because it inflates his individual status over others' collective responses. He's a great director, sure, but it's a little hagiographic to mention him in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Include him in the legacy section then. There's little doubt the film has spawned commentary in the years after its release. But there are a million Wikipedia pages about various films that include commentary from other filmmakers in their "Reception" sections. That's a fact. PresidentSquidwardTentacles (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Plese cite your source for that "fact". DonIago (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I did so above. But feel free to peruse the Wikipedia pages for Dunkirk, Lolita, Mandingo, Smokin' Aces, Zoolander, and about a million other titles. PresidentSquidwardTentacles (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

When you can provide a basis for your claim that a million articles here include commentary from other filmmakers in ther Reception sections I'll be more inclined to take your opinions more seriously. Until then, I'm having difficulty believing that you're arguing in good faith. I have to admit the fact that your account is less than a day old also doesn't fill me with confidence. Of course, even if you are arguing in good faith, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and your argument is poorly-founded. As Erik notes, there may be an appropriate way to incorporate Tarantino's views into the article, but I don't believe integrating them into the Reception section is one of those ways. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I can assure you that I am arguing in good faith. Here's another argument for Tarantino's inclusion: the Critical Response section routinely includes a film's CinemaScore, which is compiled from grades submitted by everyday audiences. Everyday audience members are not critics, yet that same information is always filed under Critical Response. I'd argue that a director, particularly a director who practices film criticism, merits mention after bestowing a superlative on a particular movie. Now, some film articles, namely those for highly-acclaimed films with legacies, separate the Reception section into two new sections: (1) Box Office and Distribution and (2) Reception and Legacy. Since The Social Network is a film with a major legacy, I'd recommend taking that approach. That way, Tarantino can fit more neatly under the Reception section. Of course, if you don't want to do that, we can still include Tarantino in the article under Critical Response, because, as I said before, he actually practices film criticism. Sure, every filmmaker expresses his/her thoughts on others' films, but few filmmakers actually write movie reviews. The few who do/did are people like Scorsese, Schrader, Bogdanovich, Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer, and, yes, Tarantino. His reviews are housed on the New Beverly Cinema website. PresidentSquidwardTentacles (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

I find it problematic for CinemaScore to be added to the "Critical reception" section. It is only added as an attempted foil to how critics received it, which is a garbage approach, like putting a film's box-office gross after its production budget. Audience scores belong in "Theatrical release" sections, especially because audiences are self-selecting and are driven by marketing and related expectations. In essence, it's been a lazy approach that isn't guideline-supported. There are certain editors under this WikiProject that go around articles of new film releases making updates and applying their cookie-cutter formatting, perpetuating a false standard. That kind of thing happens with the Rotten Tomatoes wording too, worded under the assumption that people in general understand how RT works.

In any case, here is another possible solution. I've changed "Impact" to "Legacy", and doing a little more research, I am seeing some periodicals talk about The Social Network as among the best of the 2010s, in the same vein that Tarantino did. So such references could be combined into a solid paragraph. Rolling Stone, Inverse, Mashable, Polygon, Vulture. It's also possible when the 10-year anniversary of the film arrives later this year, there will be additional commentary looking back on this film. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I added content to "Legacy" as seen in the last two paragraphs here that combines several different sources discussing the film as part of the decade. Thoughts? Pinging PresidentSquidwardTentacles, Doniago, ZimZalaBim. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, which probably isn't much, I like your approach. I'm going to clean up the Legacy section a bit by streamlining some of the quotes, since it kind of feels like a disorganized collection of plaudits at the moment. I'm also looking back on the Wiki pages for some of the best films of the 2000s, namely Mulholland Drive, There Will Be Blood, and In the Mood for Love, in the hopes of figuring out how they went about discussing end-of-decade praise. JakeDapper (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I really hope it isn't too late for me to jump in, by the way. JakeDapper (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

JakeDapper PresidentSquidwardTentacles Erik ZimZalaBim Donlago You should all be aware that since June 2020, Quentin Tarantino has been an officially recognized critic on Rotten Tomatoes. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Re tagging Doniago as I misspelled the name on my first response. Please see above comment. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's a link to a source https://thenewbev.com/quentin-news/tomatometer-approved/ Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Is there something you want to change in the article as a result? Tarantino is quoted under the "Post-2010s assessment" subsection based on a reference that quoted his thoughts (not an actual review). I think that coverage is sufficient. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Erik I added this info for the editor's discussing it, including yourself. I thought it was relevant to the conversation. Personally I don't care if it's included or not. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

10th anniversary

This film was released in a festival on September 24, 2010 and in theaters on October 1, 2010. It looks like there is coverage about the film's 10th anniversary that could be added to the "Legacy" section (which may need subsections by now). Here are some available sources:

• What 'The Social Network' Got Right About Our Relationship to Social Media
• Ten Years Later, Mark Zuckerberg Is Still Trying to Overcome ‘The Social Network’
• ‘The Social Network’ at 10: Fincher, Facebook and the Faking of an Empire
• 'The Social Network' Tried to Warn Us

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Laeismann (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Laeismann (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Stylization

Hello, I would like to bring up the stylization of The Social Network. In just about every movie poster, the title is always in lowercase. Therefore, I had hoped to add (stylized as the social network) in the article. The person who reverted me said it was because there was no reliable source, but mid90s doesn’t have one! Is this change I propose good? 2603:8080:B8F0:5360:59D2:E9F7:3A39:F618 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't currently have an opinion on when discussing a stylized title is merited, but I would note that Seven (1995 film) does include a source supporting its stylized title. On the other hand, BUtterfield 8 includes no mention of the capitalized 'U' in the lead as an arguable stylization; instead there's a section that discusses the title of the film. Of course, using other articles as a precedent isn't necessarily a good idea either; it could simply indicate that those articles themselves need improvement. DonIago (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

In general we don't say a film's name is stylized based on how it appears on a poster. See Saving Private Ryan (which likewise appears in lowercase) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (which appears in all caps). ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

While I don't believe WikiProject Film has any guidelines on stylization, MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says to put "significant alternative titles" in the first sentence. From what I've seen, if the official title is stylized but the common name preferred for the article title, we usually show the common name then the stylized official name. In this case, the lowercase presentation does not appear significant (likewise with uppercase). We would need to see at least some reliable sources write the title that way. This logic should apply to Mid90s too. (EDIT: I started a discussion at Talk:Mid90s § Stylized title.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)