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.
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?
rabidonrails · · focus · HN ↗
Maybe it's warranted maybe it isn't but it sure seems like Musk was right to be concerned.
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