In 2010, “The Social Network” arrived in theaters with a wave of anticipation. Two of the biggest names in cinema, director David Fincher and writer Aaron Sorkin, joined forces to explain the era of interconnectedness.
The timing was perfect. Twitter was gaining momentum, YouTube was transforming the way people watched content, and Facebook, the subject of “social networking,” had established itself as a social media juggernaut, leaving MySpace and other contenders in the dust. But six years after its launch, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s geeky 20-something founder, remained an enigma that Fincher and Sorkin were determined to solve.
And the film’s marketing campaign could not be ignored. Its initial teaser, introduced by a choir mournfully singing Radiohead’s “Freak” as dozens of Facebook profiles scrolled across the screen, is still surprisingly innovative, as is its poster, a photo of Jesse Eisenberg (as Zuckerberg) with the words “You don’t reach 500 million friends without making a few enemies” superimposed over his face. (Today, Facebook has 3 billion users.)
The film kept its promises. Fincher’s cold, penetrating camera captured the murky, morally compromised world of Silicon Valley and the old-money elitism of Harvard, while Sorkin’s crackling dialogue kept the film’s deposition-heavy plot humming. And the script based the story on instantly recognizable themes, despite its exotic settings.
“What drew me to (the film) had nothing to do with Facebook,” Sorkin said in an interview with the Writers Guild of America. “The invention itself is as modern as it gets, but the story is as old as the storytelling; the themes of friendship, loyalty, jealousy, class and power.”
“The Social Network” was a box office success and won an Oscar, and is now considered one of the greatest films of the 21st century. That won’t be the fate of its sequel, “The Social Reckoning,” which bombed in its opening weekend, grossing just $5.5 million. Its predecessor earned $22.1 million in its debut and closed its run with $225 million worldwide. Sony has wisely kept the budget for “The Social Reckoning” at $30 million, meaning it won’t suffer losses on the scale of “Digger.” (Ousted Warner Bros. chiefs Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy probably should have taken a cue from Sony’s Tom Rothman, who greenlights ambitious films while keeping costs low.)
“The social assessment” is not only a financial failure, it is also a critical failure. Reviews were rave, with many critics lamenting the fact that Fincher abandoned directing the film, leaving Sorkin to slip behind the camera.
“Sorkin doesn’t look beyond the words on the page, and the film itself seems made headlong,” lamented the New Yorker’s Richard Brody.
Eisenberg also chose not to participate, apparently because he feared glorifying the tech mogul. He had been bothered after fans approached him quoting lines of dialogue from “The Social Network” or asking him to sign cards reading “I’m the CEO’s Bitch.” Instead, he was replaced by Jeremy Strong. This made the film more difficult to market. With only one member of its creative team returning, Sony Pictures was hesitant to sell it as a sequel, but the studio still sprinkled bits of “The Social Network” DNA into its promotional materials. There was the title, an obvious nod to Zuckerberg’s first film, and the ads used clips of the music of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The posters also referenced the “social network’s” marketing campaign, noting “We’re well past the time to make friends” in a similar blocky script.
But there wasn’t the same urgency in the story being told. “The Social Reckoning” focuses less on Zuckerberg and more on data engineer Frances Haugen’s decision to expose how Facebook’s algorithms were promoting political content that radicalized users, as well as the company’s awareness of how its products were contributing to a rise in bullying and suicide among teens. Haugen’s decision was courageous and the public had a right to know the dark side of the tech giant, but “The Social Reckoning” arrives as a much greater threat emerges from Silicon Valley.
Artificial intelligence is making headlines as fears grow about the economic disruption it will trigger when millions of jobs are replaced by machines and, more seriously, about its potential to trigger a world-ending event. It seems like every day a new Cassandra emerges, warning of potential apocalypse, whether it’s an AI tycoon or a disillusioned executive. And it’s not as if Haugen’s testimony led to lasting change on Facebook. We are still drowning in an ocean of misinformation, with a federal government that has made the lazy people complacent with its regulatory approach.
As IndieWire’s Ryan Lattanzio said, “‘The Social Reckoning’ argues that the consequences of their denunciations are still being felt today. In reality, living as we do in 2026, it feels like…no one cares and nothing has changed?”
Instead, two other films could emerge to spark the kind of urgent debates that “The Social Reckoning” thought it would inspire. “Musk,” which debuted in limited release this week and grossed $22,000 at four sites, and “Artificial,” a look at Sam Altman and OpenAI that was one of the revelations of the New York Film Festival.
The four-hour documentary about Elon Musk probably won’t be a blockbuster, but it should factor into the awards conversation with its scathing look at the world’s richest man. As for “Artificial,” it has already sparked controversy after its original distributor, Amazon MGM Studios, abruptly dropped it days after the company signed a $50 billion deal with OpenAI. It was then acquired by Neon, who will release it at Christmas. The idea that “Artificial” was too hot to handle could make it irresistible to a public worried about how AI is reshaping our world.
Or maybe it will cut too close to home. Sometimes we just go to the movies to escape, not remembering how the technology designed to connect us instead distances us from each other.
Gn entert
