I just don't understand why this trailer starts with Musk accusing Gibney of this being a hit piece, then a snarky response from Gibney...and then a full trailer that sounds like a hit piece.
Maybe it's warranted maybe it isn't but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned.
and cite it as an example on <a href="https://grokipedia.com/page/hit_piece" rel="nofollow">https://grokipedia.com/page/hit_piece
I... just don't understand your confusion? Of course it's a "hit piece". There's a market for hit pieces because there are people willing to pay to see content aimed at their favorite targets. And the trailer starts with Musk sniping to substantiate what it's about and clarify who its for.
Maybe it's that you think "hit piece" means "illigitimate?". Documentary cinema is absolutely allowed to have perspective. Musk's own communication is hardly unbiased or coolly considered, and he's been known to engage in some "creative advocacy" of his own. Would you apply the same logic there?
My own opinion is that he's a complicated guy and a seemingly textbook bipolar case with a lot of good technical instincts and a really destructive egomaniacal streak. He could do with some hit pieces, honestly.
Seriously, do kids not use scare quotes anymore or know how they work? There are no less than three replies here interpreting what I said entirely wrong.
I said it's a "hit piece", not a hit piece. And I gave a definition for what I meant in the very next sentences. Because, obviously, the traditional definition is one that is going to be subjective and silly and not worth discussing. But the idea of documentary filmaking having opinion and perspective is important, nonetheless.
Since you like definitions: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
That bit was wrong. He was wrong about lots of other stuff too.
But Tesla's product design and market fit was right on the whole. SpaceX was almost all right and not wrong. Starlink was almost 100% right. PayPal was a lot more right than wrong. Obviously you can nitpick about anything, but when you make that many great bets on things that other people tried and failed at, I think you need to at least nod that maybe his instincts were... good. Which is what I said.
Paypal was invented at Confinity which was part owned by Thiel and had nothing to do with Musk. Thiel bought Musk's x.com in a merger deal that also made Musk ceo of the new company for 6 months before he was fired for incompetence. Beyond the windows server transition he also insisted on rebranding paypal to x.com, the everything app. I don't know where he was mostly right at paypal?
It’s obviously got a point of view but most of what’s in it has been reported elsewhere. The value is mostly putting it together in an engaging package, plus some interviews with a couple of ex partners. And some interesting archival footage of a younger Musk I’ve never seen (though also never looked)
Overall an OK movie despite few bizarre directorial choices: letting interviewees speculate about things that are almost certainly not true in a few places, and “interviewing” an AI generated Musk on camera. Also it’s 4 hours long.
> but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned
You might want to consider if you are out of the loop. I don't think Musk is "concerned". If anything, I wouldn't doubt this is partially his idea. It's just the latest iteration of "reality TV".
It's been over a decade that we've had this style of marketing popularized by Trump. It works very well. There's even an Elizabeth Holmes one coming out soon (You Can See Everything)! I'm actually very excited to see Nathan Fielder's take on this genre of unhinged drama.
As someone who woke up early to see Starship today, I promise I would love to believe that he's actually playing a crazy person. I don't think we can reject the notion entirely. But there is zero evidence for it and a lot against. (He also doesn't need to be personally writing anything to constantly be on social media.)
The entire magic trick is that you believe celebrities act as completely independent individuals with immense power. Elon's sanity is irrelevant.
It works beautifully on so many different types of ego. If you have power fantasies, you can either choose to live vicariously through the celebrity or immediately find your equally toxic anti-fan group. Everyone else at least just finds it entertaining to watch all kinds of people make asses of themselves.
Meanwhile, nobody ever really questions the basis for all of this. The public side of a celebrity is a brand that is indeed as carefully planned out as any other ad campaign.
The only difference today is that things must be done like this to get ahead of naysayers since everyone has a voice online. All the bad faith is now a feature, not a bug. As soon as they figure out all the ways something could be argued against, they have to pre-emptively find the dumbest ways to say it to cast doubt on the legitimacy of dissent.
It's like a Penn and Teller act. They don't even have to hide any of this for the illusion to still work.
I don't maintain a non-pseudonymous internet presence because I don't think I could be unconcerned about folks shitting on me online–I got upset when my cat ghosted me for an hour after I got back from a holiday a month ago.
It's a journey of maturation I haven't yet completed. I suspect neither has Musk (if he recognizes it as a shortcoming).
rabidonrails · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe it's warranted maybe it isn't but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned.
someothherguyy · · focus · HN ↗
and cite it as an example on <a href="https://grokipedia.com/page/hit_piece" rel="nofollow">https://grokipedia.com/page/hit_piece
Ardren · · focus · HN ↗
As expected from MechaHitler themselves.
yabatopia · · focus · HN ↗
usagisushi · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
IAmBroom · · focus · HN ↗
Oh please please please...
ajross · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe it's that you think "hit piece" means "illigitimate?". Documentary cinema is absolutely allowed to have perspective. Musk's own communication is hardly unbiased or coolly considered, and he's been known to engage in some "creative advocacy" of his own. Would you apply the same logic there?
My own opinion is that he's a complicated guy and a seemingly textbook bipolar case with a lot of good technical instincts and a really destructive egomaniacal streak. He could do with some hit pieces, honestly.
Isamu · · focus · HN ↗
I have no opinion about this movie.
ajross · · focus · HN ↗
I said it's a "hit piece", not a hit piece. And I gave a definition for what I meant in the very next sentences. Because, obviously, the traditional definition is one that is going to be subjective and silly and not worth discussing. But the idea of documentary filmaking having opinion and perspective is important, nonetheless.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, "presenting false or biased information in a way that appears objective and truthful" is an essential part of being a hit piece [1].
[1] <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hit_piece" rel="nofollow">https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hit_piece
8n4vidtmkvmk · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Sure. Which is why it's nonsense to prematurely conclude that "of course it's a 'hit piece'."
ajross · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
DonHopkins · · focus · HN ↗
wallst07 · · focus · HN ↗
ajross · · focus · HN ↗
"Biased" is a weasel word when used in arguments like this. I really doubt anything in this film is actually materially false.
datsci_est_2015 · · focus · HN ↗
CursedSilicon · · focus · HN ↗
Like when he wanted to abandon UNIX for Windows NT at PayPal? [1]
[1] <a href="https://archive.is/L3ue8" rel="nofollow">https://archive.is/L3ue8
ajross · · focus · HN ↗
That bit was wrong. He was wrong about lots of other stuff too.
But Tesla's product design and market fit was right on the whole. SpaceX was almost all right and not wrong. Starlink was almost 100% right. PayPal was a lot more right than wrong. Obviously you can nitpick about anything, but when you make that many great bets on things that other people tried and failed at, I think you need to at least nod that maybe his instincts were... good. Which is what I said.
irthomasthomas · · focus · HN ↗
CursedSilicon · · focus · HN ↗
The company he invested in, then sued to be declared "Founder" and now parades as his own, personal invention?
>SpaceX was almost all right and not wrong
Except about the things Elon opines on. Because he doesn't know shit about rocketry
>PayPal was a lot more right than wrong
He was kicked out of Paypal for all his stupid ideas
meyum33 · · focus · HN ↗
eli · · focus · HN ↗
Overall an OK movie despite few bizarre directorial choices: letting interviewees speculate about things that are almost certainly not true in a few places, and “interviewing” an AI generated Musk on camera. Also it’s 4 hours long.
sublinear · · focus · HN ↗
You might want to consider if you are out of the loop. I don't think Musk is "concerned". If anything, I wouldn't doubt this is partially his idea. It's just the latest iteration of "reality TV".
It's been over a decade that we've had this style of marketing popularized by Trump. It works very well. There's even an Elizabeth Holmes one coming out soon (You Can See Everything)! I'm actually very excited to see Nathan Fielder's take on this genre of unhinged drama.
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
Unpetty men aren’t constantly on social media.
sublinear · · focus · HN ↗
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
sublinear · · focus · HN ↗
It works beautifully on so many different types of ego. If you have power fantasies, you can either choose to live vicariously through the celebrity or immediately find your equally toxic anti-fan group. Everyone else at least just finds it entertaining to watch all kinds of people make asses of themselves.
Meanwhile, nobody ever really questions the basis for all of this. The public side of a celebrity is a brand that is indeed as carefully planned out as any other ad campaign.
The only difference today is that things must be done like this to get ahead of naysayers since everyone has a voice online. All the bad faith is now a feature, not a bug. As soon as they figure out all the ways something could be argued against, they have to pre-emptively find the dumbest ways to say it to cast doubt on the legitimacy of dissent.
It's like a Penn and Teller act. They don't even have to hide any of this for the illusion to still work.
modeless · · focus · HN ↗
> karma: 191021
JumpCrisscross · · focus · HN ↗
It's a journey of maturation I haven't yet completed. I suspect neither has Musk (if he recognizes it as a shortcoming).
JKCalhoun · · focus · HN ↗
palmotea · · focus · HN ↗
Anything that doesn't make Musk look awesome and support his PR goals.
DonHopkins · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]