They are trying to cover close to 20 years in two hours, of course they compressed the time table.
Biopics are not documentaries after all.
True, but jumping from Woz's first hacked up board to the idea of the Mac, in less than thirty seconds, seems like compressing the timeline just a wee bit too much :-)
At that speed, the whole film should take about ten minutes to cover his entire life.
True, but jumping from Woz's first hacked up board to the idea of the Mac, in less than thirty seconds, seems like compressing the timeline just a wee bit too much :-)
Who said they were doing that? I didn't necessarily interpret the discussion that way.
Think about the historical context of the Apple I/II. At the time people were using punch cards on mainframes and entering programs by flipping a bunch of switches on the front of a metal box. In this context, what "Jobs" is saying is quite applicable.
This is really amazing. A magical performance from Kutcher... his appearance, mannerisms, delivery - it just works. This movie will be really really cool. A truly breakthrough cinematic portrayal of a revolutionary tech icon.
That's important to keep in mind. It's also important to realize which details (and people and events) are fine to gloss over or "composite" for efficient story-telling. Even "Pirates of Silicon Valley" composited some people and events but was still largely accurate.
This is really amazing. A magical performance from Kutcher... his appearance, mannerisms, delivery - it just works. This movie will be really really cool. A truly breakthrough cinematic portrayal of a revolutionary tech icon.
Joe Pesci would have made a better Jobs: "hey IBM," (grabs crotch) "I got your floppies right here!"
Yeah he's a great mimic, but mimicry and acting are different skills and he hasn't shown the latter. And never has Gad. Nor has the director shown he can direct. Chris Columbus uses the same line reading style with child actors but the babies in the first Harry Potter danced rings around this scene
It's kind of the same style and quality of what used to be called a "made for TV movie" though. So really, all that's required is mimicry. Probably just a visual similarity to the characters and the ability to read lines is all that's really necessary here.
I found that the first time I watched the clip all I saw/heard was Kelso, but the second time it sort of reminded me of Steve Jobs.
I'm thinking with the actual movie, as long as he doesn't totally f*ck it up, after about 10 minutes or so, you won't be thinking that he's anything but Steve Jobs. At that point, it comes down to the script. Hollywood is notorious for spending millions on movies without noticing that the screenplay is actually shit, them, the writing (which is historically the most important thing), is the least important thing.
I detected at least one direct cliche and perhaps a bit more in this clip alone. If the movie is poorly written and basically just a lot of tired cliches and blandly portrayed scenes and locations, it will be a stinker, if the writing is at least passable (say the same quality as a really badly written TV show like CSI or Sex in the City), it will be a wild success with the public. It still won't be good, but it could easily be popular and successful.
There is always the outside chance that it will actually be good as well, but the odds are small I think.
Looks like a similar deal to the movies Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter released last year. I found the vampire one more entertaining but it's not getting the oscar nominations, which is a shame as I thought the few second performance of the first topless dead wench was spectacular. The jObs one is going to cover a lot of old ground as the period of time it depicts has been covered so many times. They probably didn't have the budget to go all Benjamin Button on Kutcher but they could have shoved someone else in at the end to at least get the iPhone and iPad.
I don't think Kutcher's accent here holds up very well. It definitely comes across like he just walked off the set of Two and a Half Men and onto this one.
At least the Sorkin one should cover some new ground but 3x 30 minute scenes of the backstage goings on before major product launches doesn't sound very riveting. I can't even think who's going to play that role. Christian Bale?
"I'm gonna kick your f*in ass. This camera doesn't turn on, you prick. Are you professional or not? NO! NO! Don't shut me up. I'm gonna throw this at you if it doesn't work on stage."
I don't recall the Isaacson book covering anything backstage at the launches and how could it possibly constitute a biopic? I guess the products will be the Macintosh, the iPod and iPhone so it will cover a long span of time but I'm not seeing how that's going to come together into something interesting to watch.
They are trying to cover close to 20 years in two hours, of course they compressed the time table.
Biopics are not documentaries after all.
i'm not certain he's talking about WYSIWYG (the user interface for the lisa and mac.) my guess is that this scene is more early days, and they are talking about the basic idea of an operating system that allows the user to be aware of the whole system, not just individual commands. but admittedly, this is total speculation anyone with real historical computer knowledge know?
Part of the problem with this particular clip is that Ashton is too old to convincingly play 1975-era Steve. He'll work much better as they move into the '80s, but in 1975 Steve was just 20. Most people can't pull off looking 20 when they're 25, Ashton's hitting 35 next month.
That's a very good reenactment of Jobs, and a very bad reenactment of Woz.
Funny - Woz himself has a different view:
From MacNN (emphasis added):
The widely publicized first scene released from Ashton Kutcher's iJobs biographical feature on Steve Jobs is said to be "not close" to the actual relationship between Jobs and Stephen Wozniak, according to Wozniak himself...
The clip shows an alleged seminal moment between the pair, with Jobs learning about the computer that Wozniak was able to build, and the future CEO seeing the implications for the future. Wozniak's comment on Gizmodo says of the clip that Jobs and he "never had such interaction and roles" and he was "not even sure what it's getting at." He also calls the personalities "very wrong" with Gad's portrayal being closer than Kutcher's of Jobs'.
Wozniak closed the remark by saying that "my purpose was inspired by the values of the Homebrew Computer Club along with ideas of the value of such machines and Steve J. wasn't around and didn't attend the club so he was the one learning about such social impact of the future."
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
They are trying to cover close to 20 years in two hours, of course they compressed the time table.
Biopics are not documentaries after all.
True, but jumping from Woz's first hacked up board to the idea of the Mac, in less than thirty seconds, seems like compressing the timeline just a wee bit too much :-)
At that speed, the whole film should take about ten minutes to cover his entire life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
True, but jumping from Woz's first hacked up board to the idea of the Mac, in less than thirty seconds, seems like compressing the timeline just a wee bit too much :-)
Who said they were doing that? I didn't necessarily interpret the discussion that way.
Think about the historical context of the Apple I/II. At the time people were using punch cards on mainframes and entering programs by flipping a bunch of switches on the front of a metal box. In this context, what "Jobs" is saying is quite applicable.
He is actually doing better than I expected in that clip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Who said they were doing that? I didn't necessarily interpret the discussion that way.
I'm just poking at the video and Kutcher's enthusiasm
It'll still be surprising if they get even half of everything right, but yeah as charlituna said, it's not a documentary.
This is really amazing. A magical performance from Kutcher... his appearance, mannerisms, delivery - it just works. This movie will be really really cool. A truly breakthrough cinematic portrayal of a revolutionary tech icon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
...as charlituna said, it's not a documentary.
That's important to keep in mind. It's also important to realize which details (and people and events) are fine to gloss over or "composite" for efficient story-telling. Even "Pirates of Silicon Valley" composited some people and events but was still largely accurate.
Joe Pesci would have made a better Jobs: "hey IBM," (grabs crotch) "I got your floppies right here!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Yeah he's a great mimic, but mimicry and acting are different skills and he hasn't shown the latter. And never has Gad. Nor has the director shown he can direct. Chris Columbus uses the same line reading style with child actors but the babies in the first Harry Potter danced rings around this scene
It's kind of the same style and quality of what used to be called a "made for TV movie" though. So really, all that's required is mimicry. Probably just a visual similarity to the characters and the ability to read lines is all that's really necessary here.
I found that the first time I watched the clip all I saw/heard was Kelso, but the second time it sort of reminded me of Steve Jobs.
I'm thinking with the actual movie, as long as he doesn't totally f*ck it up, after about 10 minutes or so, you won't be thinking that he's anything but Steve Jobs. At that point, it comes down to the script. Hollywood is notorious for spending millions on movies without noticing that the screenplay is actually shit, them, the writing (which is historically the most important thing), is the least important thing.
I detected at least one direct cliche and perhaps a bit more in this clip alone. If the movie is poorly written and basically just a lot of tired cliches and blandly portrayed scenes and locations, it will be a stinker, if the writing is at least passable (say the same quality as a really badly written TV show like CSI or Sex in the City), it will be a wild success with the public. It still won't be good, but it could easily be popular and successful.
There is always the outside chance that it will actually be good as well, but the odds are small I think.
Looks like a similar deal to the movies Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter released last year. I found the vampire one more entertaining but it's not getting the oscar nominations, which is a shame as I thought the few second performance of the first topless dead wench was spectacular. The jObs one is going to cover a lot of old ground as the period of time it depicts has been covered so many times. They probably didn't have the budget to go all Benjamin Button on Kutcher but they could have shoved someone else in at the end to at least get the iPhone and iPad.
I don't think Kutcher's accent here holds up very well. It definitely comes across like he just walked off the set of Two and a Half Men and onto this one.
At least the Sorkin one should cover some new ground but 3x 30 minute scenes of the backstage goings on before major product launches doesn't sound very riveting. I can't even think who's going to play that role. Christian Bale?
"I'm gonna kick your f*in ass. This camera doesn't turn on, you prick. Are you professional or not? NO! NO! Don't shut me up. I'm gonna throw this at you if it doesn't work on stage."
I don't recall the Isaacson book covering anything backstage at the launches and how could it possibly constitute a biopic? I guess the products will be the Macintosh, the iPod and iPhone so it will cover a long span of time but I'm not seeing how that's going to come together into something interesting to watch.
deleted.
Trying to figure out why I should care....
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
They are trying to cover close to 20 years in two hours, of course they compressed the time table.
Biopics are not documentaries after all.
i'm not certain he's talking about WYSIWYG (the user interface for the lisa and mac.) my guess is that this scene is more early days, and they are talking about the basic idea of an operating system that allows the user to be aware of the whole system, not just individual commands. but admittedly, this is total speculation
That's a very good reenactment of Jobs, and a very bad reenactment of Woz.
It is like blind parrot trying to describe Picasso painting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE
He is actually doing better than I expected in that clip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FjordPrefect
Well I'm excited. He seems to be taking this pretty seriously and it shows. Can't wait!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That clip makes it look like it's written better than I had imaged although it still feels like a TV movie, at best.
Maybe this will expose me as someone who has actually seen Kutcher's previous "work", but I see more Kutcher than Jobs in this scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
And why is that? Is it because people don't, you know, walk and talk at the same time in real life?
I would say more like "because it's a horrible over-used cliche that rarely happens in real life."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeronPrometheus
That's a very good reenactment of Jobs, and a very bad reenactment of Woz.
Funny - Woz himself has a different view:
From MacNN (emphasis added):
The widely publicized first scene released from Ashton Kutcher's iJobs biographical feature on Steve Jobs is said to be "not close" to the actual relationship between Jobs and Stephen Wozniak, according to Wozniak himself...
The clip shows an alleged seminal moment between the pair, with Jobs learning about the computer that Wozniak was able to build, and the future CEO seeing the implications for the future. Wozniak's comment on Gizmodo says of the clip that Jobs and he "never had such interaction and roles" and he was "not even sure what it's getting at." He also calls the personalities "very wrong" with Gad's portrayal being closer than Kutcher's of Jobs'.
Wozniak closed the remark by saying that "my purpose was inspired by the values of the Homebrew Computer Club along with ideas of the value of such machines and Steve J. wasn't around and didn't attend the club so he was the one learning about such social impact of the future."