The film has nothing to do with Zuckerberg winning over Assange. It was all politics. They just couldn't name him the Person of the Year. Pussies.

On yesterday's Saturday Night Live's Weekend Update segment, Seth Meyers congratulated Time magazine for finding out about Facebook just after his grandmother did.

So they could name Hitler, but not Assange?

Mags is correct. If the movie was never made, zuckerberg never would have donated all that money, time would have ignored him.

...which is the hypocrisy of Time Magazine itself pointing out the political motivations of picking Assange.

Am I the only one seeing how idiotic the notion of picking someone as the person of the year because there was a biographic movie about him that year is (even the people behind it admit that they were't really interested in complete truth, so TSN doesn't really work as a good advocate pro or contra Zuckerberg in reality)? I loved TSN, but it has nothing to do with picking Zuckerberg, no matter how brilliant or loved it is. That definitely isn't because of Zuckerberg, but because of Fincher, Sorkin, Reznor, Ross, the actors and whoever did the great editing on the movie.

What were the reasons Time gave for picking Zuckerberg anyway?


That's a reason to name him douchebag of the year, not Person of the year. So to save his name from the harm the movie could do to his image, he donates money? Wow, he must be the greatest person of the year ever...

you seem to be confused what person of the year is. It can be both positive and negative. Person of the year doesn't mean greatest person of the year.

Jim wins!

The film had an impact on Time's choice not because how accurate/inaccurate it is at depicting Zuckerberg or even how well it was received, but rather by simply putting the spotlight on him. It is not just a regular biopic, but a biopic on someone and a story that is very much relevant instead of a person who is no longer that. Like Magnus said, purely from a technology or user-growth standpoint, Facebook doesn't really compare to Twitter or say Foursquare and Groupon this year; instead, its highlights this year are privacy issue, the film, and Zuckerberg's appearance in various shows, and his emergence in public's eyes as a result.

Indeed. TIME explicitely states that it is NOT an honor.


That said, anyone saying that the film did not have an influence is kidding himself/herself.

Hehe. Just thought I'd bump this thread.

For the record, this was a lock up until shortly after the Globes. I can't believe how quickly the shift happened.

I don't know why the shift happened. Is it so fascinating for Americans to see royal people portrayed in film?

All hail Emperor Zuckerberg in The Social Network 2.

In light of Prince William's wedding, your lordship.

Um, that post was from September. I switched my prediction to The King's Speech as soon as it won the DGA.

Also, there's no such thing as a lock when it comes to the Oscars. Just very good odds.

Off with their heads!