or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 'Jobs' biopic disappoints at box office in opening weekend
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'Jobs' biopic disappoints at box office in opening weekend

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
Released last Friday to mostly negative reviews, "Jobs" starring Ashton Kutcher earned less than its studio hoped it would over the weekend.

acidjobskutch


Playing on 2,381 screens across the U.S., "Jobs" took in an estimated $6.7 million this weekend, with Sunday totals projected. That's less than the $8 million to $9 million that distributor Open Road Films hoped it would earn, according to Box Office Mojo.

Critics weren't impressed with the film, earning a rating of just 25 percent "fresh" on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.

Still, the movie has a good shot at turning a profit in theaters and through eventual DVD sales. The film had a reported production budget of $12 million, meaning "Jobs" made most of its money back in the first three days.

While "Jobs" from Open Road Films was an independent production, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs will be the subject of another upcoming film being produced by Sony and penned by Oscar-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin has described his film as "a play in three scenes," as it will be comprised entirely of backstage moments before the unveiling of three iconic products: the original Mac, NeXT, and the iPod.
post #2 of 95

It was a good Hollywood film. I've read virtually all of the books on Jobs and Woz, as well as Apple.

There was hardly an article on AppleInsider or anywhere else that when they mentioned the Kutcher version (he did a nice Job(s)) the writer had to kill himself to get right to the Sorkin film, as soon as possible, not giving this one a fair hearing. Sure there was license, that usually makes it better, at least in this one. It was an "emotional" film. Geeks might not like that, they already have their pre-formed opinion whereas I actually bothered to see it. I am buying a DVD and my g/f wants to get her own.

Geeks often don't give anyone a break. The difference between Hollywood and the technocrats is usually, budget, talent, film direction, story writing, and acting. In other words, the reasons they don't often do well with women... it's obsession.

Go see it and "enjoy" it.

One last thing... when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?

post #3 of 95

We see this time and time again.

 

If you don't have a good director/writer, the movie stinks and few will want to go see it.  I really wish a GREAT director would have helmed the project and not this guy.

 

I recently saw the new Wizard of Oz... it wasn't good.  I kept thinking how great Wes Anderson of a Wizard of Oz movie he could have made; not that he would accept the job.

post #4 of 95
Not that I care about it, but Elysium brining in $13.6 million in its second weekend guarantees we won't have to see another landfill motion picture from this saga.
post #5 of 95
A dumb movie, and it'll take a lot more than $12 million to make its money back. There are massive marketing and distribution charges that are significantly bigger than the budget itself. It won't make a penny for its investors.
post #6 of 95
Because even the clueless grandmother movie goer read the marquee and said, "Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs? Skip."
post #7 of 95

This flop proves Apple is doomed!

post #8 of 95

I don't have a TV and so I haven't seen Kutcher in any comedic roles. My g/f has seen him on TV and thought he was OK. Her late husband was a fan of Steve Jobs and Apple.

We went to see it and would see it again. Do all grandfolks watch TV? I haven't had a TV on since 1997 and don't miss it. If you don't like something, be specific. The theater I was in was half full and it was mostly older people. No one left. Count us as 2 who saw it and who weren't swayed by critics.

post #9 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Not that I care about it, but Elysium brining in $13.6 million in its second weekend guarantees we won't have to see another landfill motion picture from this saga.

 

This and the fact that it is an in-your-face, between-the-eyes-with-a-2X4 political hack job.

post #10 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post

Go see it and "enjoy" it.

One last thing... when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?

 

We are talking about Jobs so shouldn't that be...  "One more thing..." when should ANYONE care what "critics" think? 1wink.gif

/

/

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #11 of 95
Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post
 

Geeks often don't give anyone a break.

One last thing... when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?

 

They don't, if you consider that Metacritic (Rotten Tomatoes) scores are sometimes very different from audience scores. So you can't blame this on critics.

Secondly, I don't think this is a geek movie. It is mass market. So you can't blame this on the geeks either.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #12 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

This flop proves Apple is doomed!

 

Constable Odo will say this flop proves it's time for Timid Timmy Cook to step down. This would never happen under Steve. /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #13 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Because even the clueless grandmother movie goer read the marquee and said, "Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs? Skip."

I know he could probably pass looks wise, but since Ashton Kutcher is as dumb as a stump with regards to technology, I don't want to see it.  I've seen snipets of other movies he's been in, but haven't been able to sit through the entire thing.


I'm sure it's got some novelty aspects that are worth watching, but I'll wait until it gets on cable within 6 months and not be caught by anyone.  I'm not ashamed of being an Apple user, just ashamed that I'd actually pay to see Ashton Kutcher, he though he looks the part.  The guy who played Woz is really embarrassing.   I think they didn't cast Woz very well.

post #14 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by gowhitestripes View Post

We see this time and time again.

 

If you don't have a good director/writer, the movie stinks and few will want to go see it.  I really wish a GREAT director would have helmed the project and not this guy.

 

I recently saw the new Wizard of Oz... it wasn't good.  I kept thinking how great Wes Anderson of a Wizard of Oz movie he could have made; not that he would accept the job.

 

I'd pay to see a Paul Thomas Anderson version, with either Joaquin Phoenix or Daniel Day-Lewis as a conflicted Steve Jobs who (artistic license) blows his brains out at the end of the movie. I guarantee critics would love it, and audiences would simply walk out of the theater, numb.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #15 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

They don't, if you consider that Metacritic (Rotten Tomatoes) scores are sometimes very different from audience scores. So you can't blame this on critics.

I don't even look at the critic's comments or ratings on Flixster. I rarely agree with them.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #16 of 95

Michael Kelso as Steve Jobs?

 

How could that have failed?

post #17 of 95

I saw the movie this weekend and whether or not it was acurrate or not was the least of it's troubles. The acting was fine. The problem is that it is a badly made film. It made in-house History channel biopic's look like masterpieces by comparison.

post #18 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyfozz View Post

Geeks often don't give anyone a break. The difference between Hollywood and the technocrats is usually, budget, talent, film direction, story writing, and acting. In other words, the reasons they don't often do well with women... it's obsession.

 

Not necessarily.  I depends on what the geeks choose to obsess over.  If it's academics, computers, comic books, quantum physics, etc., then good luck to them finding a woman.  But they obsess over fitness, playing sports, acting or singing in a rock band, these geeks will have little trouble finding women, with the appearance of the geeks being equal.  Of course there are exceptions to either group.  But it's true that there are many socially awkward yet very talented and obsessed geeks in entertainment and sports that don't have trouble finding women.  Women find them.  So if you're a geek, try to get into entertainment or sports.  You'd have a more balanced life.

post #19 of 95

Factual error: A film has to gross more than twice the production costs to even come close to breaking even. Remember that the local movie theaters have to get their cut, and don't forget promotion costs.

 

So "Jobs" must gross over $24 million to catch up. I suppose the film could still do well overseas and, via DVD and PPV, make a decent profit. But, as it stands, it'll vanish from U.S. theaters real fast.

 

Now consider this exaggerated example: "The Lone Ranger" cost an estimated $215 million to film, plus promotion. So far, worldwide gross totals an estimated $217 million, but Disney still expects to take a $150 million bath. I suppose it's possible for overseas box office receipts and future DVD and PPV to make up some of this difference, but that won't change the fact that this film was a gigantic misstep.

 

So much for Hollywood.

 

Peace,

Gene

Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Host/Executive Producer, The Tech Night Owl LIVE
www.technightowl.com
Reply
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
Host/Executive Producer, The Tech Night Owl LIVE
www.technightowl.com
Reply
post #20 of 95
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Still, the movie has a good shot at turning a profit in theaters and through eventual DVD sales.

 

And through eventual rentals and sales on the iTunes Store.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #21 of 95
*sad*
I wanted this movie to make a ton of money because we would have got more Steve Jobs movies.

I want EVERY movie to be about Steve. Imagine Christoffer Nolan Dark Jobs Rising.
Superhero Jobs fights crime/evil around the world by inventing Igadgets and using guns.

Or Mission Possible.
Steve/Jony is the new Impossible Mission Force!

And don't forget all the Steve pron!
post #22 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela View Post

I saw the movie this weekend and whether or not it was acurrate or not was the least of it's troubles. The acting was fine. The problem is that it is a badly made film. It made in-house History channel biopic's look like masterpieces by comparison.

 

@ bobbyfozz -- and that... is the elephant in the room.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #23 of 95
My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Kutcher does look like Jobs and, from what I read, he portrayed him pretty well.
post #24 of 95

To anyone who has seen it: how does it compare to the TV movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" starring Noah Wyle?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #25 of 95
They'll probably get their money back in a couple weeks..$12M budget. I'm sure they'll make decent money off of it..
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

To anyone who has seen it: how does it compare to the TV movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" starring Noah Wyle?

Pirates is an entertaining movie, Jobs is not.

post #27 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

This and the fact that it is an in-your-face, between-the-eyes-with-a-2X4 political hack job.

 

As a progressive I find it hilarious conservatives whine about that dichotomy. They bitch about that but ignore the scientific hurdles that would be necessary to create such a massive torus, never mind the rest of the advancements--all of which is being done by Academia who are predominantly liberal guaranteeing such an asinine bifurcation in society never happens.

post #28 of 95
Originally Posted by Gene Steinberg View Post

Factual error: A film has to gross more than twice the production costs to even come close to breaking even. Remember that the local movie theaters have to get their cut, and don't forget promotion costs.

 

So "Jobs" must gross over $24 million to catch up. I suppose the film could still do well overseas and, via DVD and PPV, make a decent profit. But, as it stands, it'll vanish from U.S. theaters real fast.

 

Now consider this exaggerated example: "The Lone Ranger" cost an estimated $215 million to film, plus promotion. So far, worldwide gross totals an estimated $217 million, but Disney still expects to take a $150 million bath. I suppose it's possible for overseas box office receipts and future DVD and PPV to make up some of this difference, but that won't change the fact that this film was a gigantic misstep.

 

So much for Hollywood.

 

Peace,

Gene

 

Ah yes.  "Hollywood accounting."  The movie, television, and video industries are all follow unique and opaque accounting practices.  For example, "Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi," the 15th highest-grossing movie in U.S. box office history, earned $475 million, cost only $32 million to produce, and somehow still shows a net loss according to the studio.

 

Just search for "Hollywood accounting" and here's what you get:

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hollywood+accounting

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #29 of 95
I think it's the topic. I am sorry but I think they overestimated how many people want to see a Steve Jobs movie. There is no doubt it has an audience, but a narrow one. Many people admire Steve Jobs, but not enough to watch his movie. There isn't mystery or legend or controversy around the man, at least, not amongst the general population. People feel they already know his story.

I'm sorry, but if this was a movie about Bill Gates it would probably be doing better. Gates is more of an enigma and is more mysterious and villainous. Jobs never made you feel like he was hiding something.

I am sure there's a lot to see in this movie and to learn about Steve Jobs, but I am guessing the average person doesn't care to know more than they already do about Steve Jobs. They probably feel they have a pretty good grasp on who he was and what he did.

In 100 years though, this film will almost certainly be viewed very differently.
Edited by rednival - 8/18/13 at 4:12pm
post #30 of 95
I've been a fan of Apple since I was a kid. I've read Walter Isaacson's biography of Jobs.

My take in the movie (saw it last night): I thoroughly enjoyed it. Not strictly accurate, uses dramatic license, but captures bit of the magic of what made Jobs and Apple so special. Ashton does a decent job of acting, shockingly enough.
post #31 of 95
I watched it this afternoon. Contrary to a lot of the negative opinions being expressed here -- most of which seem to come from blowhards (and trolls like AndrewofArabia) who have not seen it -- I thought it was a terrific movie. (So did, surprisingly, my teenager kids). It was extremely well-done, and Kutcher was really quite impressive as Jobs. The acting was fantastic overall.

My only slight knock against the movie is that it spent a bit too much -- but not inordinate amount of -- time on corporate intrigues. And, the ending seemed rather abrupt and rushed.

The only thing I can say is: judge for yourself. But please shut up about it if all you've done is read the reviews.
Edited by anantksundaram - 8/18/13 at 4:23pm
post #32 of 95
Except that it's not a mass market film. At all.

I've been a die-hard Apple fan since the IIe and I'd rather watch Jennifer Love-Hewitt make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich than watch a biopic about Steve Jobs.
post #33 of 95

Imitating Apple usually doesn't work for the competition. 

 

Hollywood included?      ;)

post #34 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

This and the fact that it is an in-your-face, between-the-eyes-with-a-2X4 political hack job.

Elysium is the gospel, not a political hack job. The station is heaven, the defense secretary is satan, Krueger is a demon, Max is Jesus who is imprinted with the code to open heaven to all -- to make all citizens of heaven where there is no aging or death, but the code is within him and he must die for it to work. The scene of his bleeding palms should have been enough for anyone to get it. ... So I'm not really sure what you're talking about as far as a political hack job.
post #35 of 95
DVD sales? LOL. Who buys DVDs?
post #36 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by connector View Post

DVD sales? LOL. Who buys DVDs?

I guess it must be all the tech Luddites of the world who'll likely spent more than $20 billion on it this year?

/s
post #37 of 95

I like the way you wrote your comment. I was irritated when I wrote my comment because I've only been on Apple Insider for a month or so (before that MacNN for years) and I think to VOTE on this movie you should at least say whether you have actually seen it before commenting instead of agreeing with the "blowhard" geek critics. I saw the Lone Ranger too and I am positive the usually critical bellyachers didn't see the whole movie--Armie Hammer came off as a dork through most of the movie until, at the very end, the bad guys (Fichtner (sp?) was wonderful!) just gave the LR more than he could handle and who Maned Up and started kicking booty the way we know he could (altho if you see the original LR reruns he wasn't big on killing anyone--he just looked cool). The cynicism and the "I know everything about everything on here from some of these "people" is so absurdly over the top in their own pretentiousness they must be showing off for someone!! Just like those who critique what DED writes. Ifn ya don't like him, don't read him. If you know more than he does and are factually correct, then SHOW us what YOU know.

post #38 of 95

Did anyone who saw it think Ashton nailed it? He did dissolve into the role and become Steve, or did it always feel like you were watching a performance by Ashton Kutcher?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #39 of 95

The movie was meh overall. It wasn't terrible, even for this geek who has read all the books on Jobs and Apple. It wasn't great either. There were some interesting moments and some that make you wish they had done better.

 

The best moment in the movie is the scene between Jobs and Ive. The actor playing Ive nailed him.

post #40 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I watched it this afternoon. Contrary to a lot of the negative opinions being expressed here -- most of which seem to come from blowhards (and trolls like AndrewofArabia) who have not seen it -- I thought it was a terrific movie. (So did, surprisingly, my teenager kids). It was extremely well-done, and Kutcher was really quite impressive as Jobs. The acting was fantastic overall.

My only slight knock against the movie is that it spent a bit too much -- but not inordinate amount of -- time on corporate intrigues. And, the ending seemed rather abrupt and rushed.

The only thing I can say is: judge for yourself. But please shut up about it if all you've done is read the reviews.

I totally agree. I saw Pirates of Silicon Valley. I liked Pirates of Silicon Valley. Noah Wyle did a good job playing Steve Jobs. Ashton Kutcher is Steve Jobs. IMHO, the entire cast is first-rate.

 

I went into the theater expecting to be underwhelmed. However, my dominant feeling while watching the movie was grief and the loss of the man and gratitude for the opportunity to see a little bit of the man on-screen. I understand that the film compressed events and took artist license. It's a movie, for God's sake. If they had shown everything that they could have shown in the proper context, then the movie would have been 40 years long.

 

I look forward to seeing the Aaron Sorkin film. It has a tough act to follow.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › 'Jobs' biopic disappoints at box office in opening weekend