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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 [B]AndrewofArabia[/B]) 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'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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The best moment in the movie is the scene between Jobs and Ive. The actor playing Ive nailed him.
I thought that was, indeed, a wonderful part of the movie. But I also thought those scenes were a tad long (the whole movie itself could have been edited down a bit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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?
Having read the mostly negative reviews (including the one on AI after its premiere at Sundance), my expectations were quite low.
Just speaking for myself, I thought that Ashton (whom I really don't like at all; in fact, I can't stand 3.5 Men) nailed the role.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela
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.
To anyone who has seen it: how does it compare to the TV movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley" starring Noah Wyle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
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.
Originally Posted by Gene Steinberg
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
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.
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.
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'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.
Imitating Apple usually doesn't work for the competition.
Hollywood included?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
The best moment in the movie is the scene between Jobs and Ive. The actor playing Ive nailed him.
I thought that was, indeed, a wonderful part of the movie. But I also thought those scenes were a tad long (the whole movie itself could have been edited down a bit).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
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?
Having read the mostly negative reviews (including the one on AI after its premiere at Sundance), my expectations were quite low.
Just speaking for myself, I thought that Ashton (whom I really don't like at all; in fact, I can't stand 3.5 Men) nailed the role.