Then maybe you should have thought of that before becoming “that guy who played Zuckerberg”. Eisenberg had plenty of movies he could have made instead I’m sure.
Thanks bro. I mean I was just trying to say he could have chosen to not portray a dude who was still alive and could potentially be an asshole in the future.
Actors choose to play people who are already assholes. They don’t feel the need to say they don’t agree the values of super sadistic mass murderer number 5. This guy did a dramatized documentary film and is now clarifying he doesn’t like the original person’s values, just acting. It should be unnecessary, but he feels he needs to clarify. A role doesn’t equal they admire the character. He’s clarifying for people like you who assume it does.
What? Of course the role and actor are separate. But if he doesn’t want to be associated with his previous roles then he should go back in time and not portray the guy he doesn’t want to be associated with. If he can’t do that, then he has to live with the association and make the most of it, like he is trying to do with the rest of his comments about Zuckerberg.
Never said that was his fault, but he did chose to portray a living person. There is repercussions to that sometimes. He had other good points in his comments but to try to dissociate from your most influential role is silly IMO. The public perceives him to be “from the Facebook movie”, whether he likes it or not.
Not really. He wants to not be associated with his old role, but he became famous because of that role. It is almost impossible to separate the two for they are so entwined.
He doesn’t want to be seen as zuck, which is fair, but he is seen as zuck, at least superficially. Not sure how that makes him a victim that some people associate him with his most famous role? Is Rainn Wilson a victim cause people only refer to him as Dwight when they see him on the street?
You have to remember 2010 was a much different time. Facebook was still relatively fun and cool. Social media hadn’t completely destroyed the fabric of our society yet, it’s was still mostly a novelty and most people didn’t really know Mark Zuckerberg at all beyond being the guy who made Facebook. Then you have David Fincher who’s one of the most sought-after directors pairing with one of Hollywood’s top writers. Every actor would jump at this opportunity.
Like we knew Mark was a weasely little shit but the problems were mostly contained to the sphere of influence that was a still growing Facebook. The world and political landscape has been completely turned upside down in the preceding 15 years. Mark is a much more dangerous person now than he was then.
It would be foolish to turn down a major role like that just because you don’t like the character it’s based on as long as it’s not glorifying them. It was PERFECT casting and he crushed it, he’s great at playing a cocky asshole
Sure, but he is only just now trying to distance himself. Seems silly when he coud’ve decided this years ago, back when we first realized the shit Facebook got up to in like 2018. Seems a bit late now doesn’t it??
yeah i’m not sure what the fuck people are on about here, if i choose to play stalin in a movie i don’t exactly get to cry about being associated with stalin
Right? He chose to play a living guy now he can face the consequences of his actions. Not sure why people are thinking I am saying they share the same beliefs or something lmao
Then maybe you should have thought of that before becoming “that guy who played Zuckerberg”. Eisenberg had plenty of movies he could have made instead I’m sure.
This is the dumbest comment I’ve read so far this week.
Thanks bro. I mean I was just trying to say he could have chosen to not portray a dude who was still alive and could potentially be an asshole in the future.
The movie exposed the masses to zuck’s shittyness, and he’s an actor who vaguely looks like him.
Be mad at him for his Lex Luthor and that one movie Vivarium
Why would I be mad at him?
Have you seen Vivarium?
Yeah good point
Actors choose to play people who are already assholes. They don’t feel the need to say they don’t agree the values of super sadistic mass murderer number 5. This guy did a dramatized documentary film and is now clarifying he doesn’t like the original person’s values, just acting. It should be unnecessary, but he feels he needs to clarify. A role doesn’t equal they admire the character. He’s clarifying for people like you who assume it does.
What? Of course the role and actor are separate. But if he doesn’t want to be associated with his previous roles then he should go back in time and not portray the guy he doesn’t want to be associated with. If he can’t do that, then he has to live with the association and make the most of it, like he is trying to do with the rest of his comments about Zuckerberg.
He is an actor, that is his job. How is it his fault that people are not capable of differentiating the role from the person?
Never said that was his fault, but he did chose to portray a living person. There is repercussions to that sometimes. He had other good points in his comments but to try to dissociate from your most influential role is silly IMO. The public perceives him to be “from the Facebook movie”, whether he likes it or not.
But you are implying it or what else does it mean when you say, that because of his actions people treat him unfairly?
Sounds like victim-blaming.
He’s a victim for checks notes getting paid millions of dollars to play in a movie.
That is obviously another topic.
Not really. He wants to not be associated with his old role, but he became famous because of that role. It is almost impossible to separate the two for they are so entwined.
He doesn’t want to be seen as zuck, which is fair, but he is seen as zuck, at least superficially. Not sure how that makes him a victim that some people associate him with his most famous role? Is Rainn Wilson a victim cause people only refer to him as Dwight when they see him on the street?
You have to remember 2010 was a much different time. Facebook was still relatively fun and cool. Social media hadn’t completely destroyed the fabric of our society yet, it’s was still mostly a novelty and most people didn’t really know Mark Zuckerberg at all beyond being the guy who made Facebook. Then you have David Fincher who’s one of the most sought-after directors pairing with one of Hollywood’s top writers. Every actor would jump at this opportunity.
Like we knew Mark was a weasely little shit but the problems were mostly contained to the sphere of influence that was a still growing Facebook. The world and political landscape has been completely turned upside down in the preceding 15 years. Mark is a much more dangerous person now than he was then.
It would be foolish to turn down a major role like that just because you don’t like the character it’s based on as long as it’s not glorifying them. It was PERFECT casting and he crushed it, he’s great at playing a cocky asshole
Its not based on a character, it is about a real person.
Sure, but he is only just now trying to distance himself. Seems silly when he coud’ve decided this years ago, back when we first realized the shit Facebook got up to in like 2018. Seems a bit late now doesn’t it??
yeah i’m not sure what the fuck people are on about here, if i choose to play stalin in a movie i don’t exactly get to cry about being associated with stalin
Right? He chose to play a living guy now he can face the consequences of his actions. Not sure why people are thinking I am saying they share the same beliefs or something lmao