MovieChat Forums > The Social Network (2010) Discussion > Sean didn't bring anything to the table?...

Sean didn't bring anything to the table?!?!?!

posted 10 years ago by Pterodactyl_dude
20 replies | jump to latest

Absolutely love this film (and any film written by Aaron Sorkin for that matter) but the only problem I had, and didn't really realise until recently is Eduardo's constant complaining that Sean didn't bring anything to the table.

Surely you could've argued that Sean had the following contributions based on the film:

1. Set up the meeting with Peter Thiel which got them the first 500k
2. Had the idea of playing the revenge stunt on Manningham which lead to even more funding
3. Told them to drop the 'The'
4. Advised them to move to California
5. The whole billion dollar valuation speeches which further encouraged Mark to hold off on the advertising
6. Put them on 2 continents
7. Sounds cheesey but the energy he bought as well just by being around

All Eduardo did was put in the first 19k and set up meetings for advertising which weren't even used (and were never going to be used from the start according to Mark). You could even say that Eduardo was just lucky that none of Mark's programmers had 19k to spare otherwise Eduardo wouldn't even have anything to contribute.

Don't get me wrong, you can understand why Eduardo was so p!ssed and wanted Sean out, but surely he can't say his contributions were minimal.

Thoughts??

[–] maris1 10 years ago

I agree with this. as much as Parker was arrogant he also had the right connections to make Facebook bigger that it could ever have been with Eduardo at the helm

[–] PenTheater 10 years ago

of course, he was blocking, he couldn't see those things you pointed out.

I do have question for you, something I missed, how did the revenge stunt lead to more funding? thanks.

[–] eddysl12 10 years ago

Yea, Sean was absolutely critical for the reasons you mentioned. More than anything, he knew the right people to make all this happen. Eduardo was okay in the beginning, but as Facebook grew it really needed the more capable skills of Sean.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] transmentalist 9 years ago

7. Sounds cheesey but the energy he bought as well just by being around

That's not cheesy at all.

There's nothing easy or trivial about getting people pumped enough to do something extraordinary

It's actually unrealistically cynical to ignore the value of a positive attitude. Just as it's dangerously immature to believe a positive attitude is sufficient.

[–] derok 9 years ago

Eduardo said Sean didn't bring anything to the table because he didn't liked him. And the reason he didn't liked him is because he investigated Sean's past and realized that he had a negative side and maybe felt that Sean wanted a part on the company because of Sean's own interests.
So Eduardo knew that Sean had experience in programing, in building companies, but since he felt Sean could damage the company he basically said "Let's not make business with this guy", and he kept saying Sean didn't bring anything to the table, so that Mark would stop thinking about Sean.
Sean intentions were clear to Eduardo. At their first meeting with Sean, at the restaurant, Sean says he's just a fan that came to say hi, when in reality he wanted to be part of the business because he saw the potential of the company and because he knew he could earn lots of money by being a part of Facebook.

[–] WallaceHasLanded 9 years ago

Sean Parker was a parasite. He saw this amazing idea of Facebook and attached himself for the ride. He used the booming company as a leverage point to make himself viable again and to even gain revenge on people who had already run him out of the market.

Total scum bag.

[–] schall1991 9 years ago

You say scum bag, I say opportunistic genius.

[–] bsharporflat 9 years ago

You say scum bag, I say opportunistic genius.

Sure. An "opportunistic genius" who took the opportunity to have cocaine parties with underaged girls and get himself kicked out of Facebook.

He's not my personal hero, anyway.

[–] schall1991 9 years ago

He is not a heroic figure for me either. However, what's wrong with someone who has the means doing a drug of their choice? Don't say "It's illegal" because, well, who cares? Also, about the underage girls in the movie - they were clearly old enough to make decisions for themselves. In general, people have to be personally responsible for the company they choose to keep. I don't blame Sean Parker, I blame the young dumb girls.

[–] DeniP 8 years ago

Under twenty one does not mean underage.
The blonde girl for example was a Facebook employee, so she was at least 18.

But being underage does not even matter here because cocaine is illegal for any age.

And if you are talking about sex-related things... there is zero information that any of them was underage. We only know that the blonde one was not 21 or older, as she admitted.

[–] kmags84 9 years ago

Sean KNEW the industry... These CHILDREN didn't. He was obviously trying to get in on it but he offered plenty to Mark. The Big Picture... That's what it was all about. Sell too soon, someone else becomes the Billionaire while you get not nearly as rich. Sean was paranoid but he was run out of these companies because of exactly what he said... They don't want you, they want your ideas. Without him, Mark might not be worth the Billions he is, I almost guarantee it. Do you know how many people sold short their companies? Victoria's Secret isn't alone

[–] derincag 9 years ago

I agree, Sean brought a good network, mentorship, and industry knowledge to the table. Sean gave Mark a better understanding of how to make a startup succeed by exhibiting such knowledge as being in the right place at the right time and around the right people. Every time I watch this movie it motivates me to be a better entrepreneur. 😀

...Founder of http://RichTopia.com
...Follow me @ http://Twitter.com/DerinCag

[–] shawneuser 8 years ago

I don't know. You'd have to ask the direct players involved to really know.

Did they get the investment backing that they needed because of Sean Parker? Or by that time, was the growing Facebook a slamdunk that just about anyone would have thrown money at? Was it just the right TIMING and really had little to do with Parker?

Considering his history, it is hard for me to believe that big time investors would have given extra weight to what Sean Parker thought.

It is probably true that Eduardo didn't see the big picture yet and was still thinking small time, but Facebook did eventually sell advertising, didn't it? Don't think it would have ever made a difference beyond the first couple of months.