I am mildly surprised that it took this long
I associate him a lot more with bad acting then Zuckerberg.
Man made a holocaust movie at a strange time, he also took a birthright trip to israel
Taking the trip then not moving is just costing their marketing dollars and worsening the conversion.
I’d take a free trip almost anywhere.
woe is me, while my ppl (he is pro israel) commit genocide, my history is so sad, this is a great time to make a movie on it
Jesus fucking Christ the tunnel vision of this guy:
“These people have billions upon billions of dollars, like more money than any human person has ever amassed and what are they doing with it?
“Oh, they’re doing it to curry favour with somebody who’s preaching hate.
“That’s what I think … not as like a person who played in a movie. I think of it as somebody who is married to a woman who teaches disability justice in New York and lives for her students are going to get a little harder this year.”
You ever heard of the multiple genocides fuelled by Facebook?!
He probably hasn’t, tbh. To most of us here on Lemmy, that’s old news and we’re already off the Zuck train, but most people don’t look into stuff like that, and it certainly wasn’t reported.
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.
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.
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
He’s a victim for checks notes getting paid millions of dollars to play in a movie.
deleted by creator
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.
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
I mean, he also interpreted a bald, crazy billionaire supervillain. But we shouldn’t associated him with Jeff Bezos just for that.
