Jeff Daniels linked to troubled Steve Jobs biopic, Sony leak shows Sorkin wanted Tom Cruise for lead

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2014
"Newsroom" star Jeff Daniels looks likely to play former Apple CEO John Sculley in the upcoming Aaron Sorkin-penned Steve Jobs biopic, a Tuesday report said, as director Danny Boyle is said to have Daniels at the top of his list for the role.




Daniels is not formally attached to the project, but paperwork is expected to come his way soon, according to The Wrap. He would join Michael Fassbender and Seth Rogen, who are slated to play Apple cofounders Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, respectively.

Despite being most famous among moviegoers for playing a simpleton in the classic comedy Dumb and Dumber, Daniels is primarily a dramatic actor. He has won critical acclaim of late for his performance in HBO's The Newsroom, also written by Sorkin.

News of Daniels's involvement comes on the heels of reports that starlet Natalie Portman passed on the role of Jobs's daughter Lisa. She was one of several noted celebrities to contemplate but ultimately pass on the film, including Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale as well as director David Fincher.

The problems led Sony to sell the film's rights to Universal last month, though production is still said to be on schedule to begin next spring. In addition to Fassbender, Rogen, Daniels, and Boyle, Scott Rudin, Mark Gordon and Guymon Casady are on board as producers.

Update: Leaked emails from the recent high-profile Sony hack show Sorkin initially wanted Tom Cruise to play Jobs, saying that despite his age, Cruise handles dialogue well and would be a prime candidate for the role, reports CNN. Sorkin was successful in convincing Boyle and producer Scott Rudin, but in the end all was for naught as Sony let the movie go to Universal.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    "classic comedy Dumb and Dumber"

    Must. resist. gag reflex.
  • Reply 2 of 38
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    malax wrote: »
    "classic comedy Dumb and Dumber"

    Must. resist. gag reflex.

    are you suggesting Jim Carrey should play Jobs?
  • Reply 3 of 38
    Great choice!
  • Reply 4 of 38
    Visionary and Visionarier
  • Reply 5 of 38
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    Very versatile actor. Good choice.
  • Reply 6 of 38
    How is it "troubled"?
  • Reply 7 of 38
    Why do you keep calling it "troubled"? Some of the best creative work comes from production changes like this. Boyle is a great director. Good that the film moved from Sony and it's "hacked" studio.
  • Reply 8 of 38
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,078member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    How is it "troubled"?

     

    That's what I thought, too. 

  • Reply 9 of 38
    bdkennedy1bdkennedy1 Posts: 1,459member

    Projected revenue isn't what Sony thought it would be. The movie was collateral damage. I imaging Universal picked up the project, but only with budget cuts, which caused everyone to bail. Now Sorkin is in vulture mode, picking his previous actors for scraps.

  • Reply 10 of 38

    Who would Daniels play, anyway? Eric Schmidt?

  • Reply 11 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    Who would Daniels play, anyway? Eric Schmidt?




    The report is that he'd play John Sculley

  • Reply 12 of 38
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by johnnyb0731 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    Who would Daniels play, anyway? Eric Schmidt?




    The report is that he'd play John Sculley




    they could both use some laxative revenge.

  • Reply 13 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    How is it "troubled"?

     

    Soon it will be beleaguered. 

  • Reply 14 of 38
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member

    I suspect that every Hollywood project is "troubled" (to some degree) until the premiere.  It's just a very chaotic, rough and tumble, high-risk business.  Of the projects that reach the stage that this one is at, I bet less than half make it into theaters.

  • Reply 15 of 38
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,230moderator
    Who would Daniels play, anyway? Eric Schmidt?

    Chrisann Brennan:

    1000

    It's reported to be John Sculley:

    1000
  • Reply 16 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by malax View Post

     

    I suspect that every Hollywood project is "troubled" (to some degree) until the premiere.  It's just a very chaotic, rough and tumble, high-risk business.  Of the projects that reach the stage that this one is at, I bet less than half make it into theaters.




    This one has been a little more eventful. One positive it has going for it is that the screenwriter hasn't changed throughout the process. I would have liked to see Fincher stick with it as the director. I'm rather indifferent to the studio changes and actor changes (there hasn't been a drastic drop off in acting talent from the potential leads)

  • Reply 17 of 38
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,443member

    The report is that he'd play John Sculley

    The makeup looks about right.
  • Reply 18 of 38
    Oh great, its troubled?...
  • Reply 19 of 38
    hillstoneshillstones Posts: 1,490member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

    Who would Daniels play, anyway? Eric Schmidt?


    Next time, read the first sentence in the article.

  • Reply 20 of 38
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daveinpublic View Post



    Oh great, its troubled?...



    I find it troubling. :D

Sign In or Register to comment.