Sorkin apologizes for remarks about Apple's Tim Cook, says both parties went too far

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 146
    wood1208 wrote: »
    Does anyone know who is Aaron Sorkin ? My highschool son knows who is Steve Jobs or Tim Cook but not this guy than why we even mentioning his name.

    The web is your friend:

    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0815070/
    Filmography

    Jump to: Writer | Producer | Actor | Thanks | Self | Archive footage
    Hide HideWriter (11 credits)
    2015 Steve Jobs (screenplay)
    The Newsroom (TV Series) (created by - 25 episodes, 2012 - 2014) (written by - 20 episodes, 2012 - 2014) (story by - 5 episodes, 2013 - 2014) (teleplay by - 5 episodes, 2013 - 2014)
    - What Kind of Day Has It Been (2014) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - Oh Shenandoah (2014) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - Contempt (2014) ... (creator) / (story by) / (teleplay by)
    - Main Justice (2014) ... (creator) / (story by) / (teleplay by)
    - Run (2014) ... (creator) / (written by)
    Show all 25 episodes
    2011 Moneyball (screenplay)
    2010 The Social Network (screenplay)
    2007 Charlie Wilson's War (screenplay)
    Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip (TV Series) (created by - 22 episodes, 2006 - 2007) (teleplay - 14 episodes, 2006 - 2007) (written by - 8 episodes, 2006 - 2007)
    - What Kind of Day Has It Been (2007) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - K&R: Part 3 (2007) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - K&R: Part 2 (2007) ... (creator) / (teleplay)
    - K&R: Part 1 (2007) ... (creator) / (teleplay)
    - Breaking News (2007) ... (creator) / (written by)
    Show all 22 episodes
    The West Wing (TV Series) (created by - 155 episodes, 1999 - 2006) (teleplay by - 45 episodes, 1999 - 2003) (written by - 41 episodes, 1999 - 2003) (story by - 2 episodes, 1999 - 2000)
    - Tomorrow (2006) ... (creator)
    - Institutional Memory (2006) ... (creator)
    - The Last Hurrah (2006) ... (creator)
    - Transition (2006) ... (creator)
    - Requiem (2006) ... (creator)
    Show all 155 episodes
    Sports Night (TV Series) (created by - 45 episodes, 1998 - 2000) (written by - 32 episodes, 1998 - 2000) (teleplay - 8 episodes, 1999 - 2000) (story - 1 episode, 2000)
    - Quo Vadimus (2000) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - La Forza Del Destino (2000) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - Bells and a Siren (2000) ... (creator) / (written by)
    - April Is the Cruelest Month (2000) ... (creator)
    - Draft Day: Part 2 - The Fall of Ryan O'Brian (2000) ... (creator) / (teleplay)
    Show all 45 episodes
    1995 The American President (written by)
    1993 Malice (screenplay) / (story)
    1992 A Few Good Men (play) / (screenplay)
    Show ShowProducer (5 credits)
    Show ShowActor (7 credits)
    Show ShowThanks (8 credits)
    Show ShowSelf (47 credits)
    Show ShowArchive footage (2 credits)
  • Reply 82 of 146
    wood1208 wrote: »
    Does anyone know who is Aaron Sorkin ? My highschool son knows who is Steve Jobs or Tim Cook but not this guy than why we even mentioning his name.

    LOL People today probably know the name Tim Cook more then Aaron Sorkin, but before he took over as CEO of Apple his name was surely more well known. He's written some of my favourite movies.


    PS: Did you order the Code Red?
  • Reply 83 of 146
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,385member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by woodycurmudgeon View Post



    Forwarding this thread to [email protected] so Tim knows where he can come and get his dick endlessly sucked.



    You fanboys are pathetic.

     

    What a filthy, nasty troll you are. I see anyone who doesn't fall under the "attack Apple and Tim Cook no matter what" category, and uses their brains to separate fact and fiction, fits your scenario? 

     

    No clue how disgusting trolls like you, obsessed with sexual attacks and mindless Apple-bashing, retain posting privileges. 

  • Reply 84 of 146
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Certainly, Steve Jobs was controversial.

    FWIW, I met Steve Jobs about 5 times in the late 70' and 80s -- I would describe him as, er, headstrong and difficult.

    Steve would sometimes frequent our Sunnyvale store where my teenage daughter worked at the counter -- so she observed him more than I did.

    With the sublime acuity of a teenager, she described him: "What an Asshole!"

    Yes, and the lesson is that the young megalomaniac who is going on to start a beneficial revolution will probably be that kind of person.

    He will run an enterprise focused on goals unimagined by others around him. He'll make terrible mistakes and hurt people right and left, but he'll also be able to attract and motivate people to do "the best work of their lives."

    He'll attract and hold geniuses, found an empire of intelligence to match their collective vision. Toward the people around him who are working on the vision, he'll be capable of generosity to match his earlier selfishness. It could be a law of character dynamics. Hard to say, since we get to see so few examples ot it working.

    As a kind of proof, consider how he attracted the brilliant designers that Apple has, and the brilliant operations people, or the software, PR or advertising people, and then try to imagine any of them, Jony Ive say, ever being able to found Apple 1 or 2 in a million years. And then try to imagine any of them sticking with a Bill Gates or a Steve Ballmer.

    It takes a village, as Hillary said, but it also takes a mad and magnanimous shaman to inspire and lead. Alex Gibney missed the part where the Buddhist monk has to whack the disciple with a bamboo stick to teach compassion.
  • Reply 85 of 146
    flaneur wrote: »
    Certainly, Steve Jobs was controversial.

    FWIW, I met Steve Jobs about 5 times in the late 70' and 80s -- I would describe him as, er, headstrong and difficult.

    Steve would sometimes frequent our Sunnyvale store where my teenage daughter worked at the counter -- so she observed him more than I did.

    With the sublime acuity of a teenager, she described him: "What an Asshole!"

    Yes, and the lesson is that the young megalomaniac who is going on to start a beneficial revolution will probably be that kind of person.

    He will run an enterprise focused on goals unimagined by others around him. He'll make terrible mistakes and hurt people right and left, but he'll also be able to attract and motivate people to do "the best work of their lives."

    He'll attract and hold geniuses, found an empire of intelligence to match their collective vision. Toward the people around him who are working on the vision, he'll be capable of generosity to match his earlier selfishness. It could be a law of character dynamics. Hard to say, since we get to see so few examples ot it working.

    As a kind of proof, consider how he attracted the brilliant designers that Apple has, and the brilliant operations people, or the software, PR or advertising people, and then try to imagine any of them, Jony Ive say, ever being able to found Apple 1 or 2 in a million years. And then try to imagine any of them sticking with a Bill Gates or a Steve Ballmer.

    It takes a village, as Hillary said, but it also takes a mad and magnanimous shaman to inspire and lead. Alex Gibney missed the part where the Buddhist monk has to whack the disciple with a bamboo stick to teach compassion.

    Well said!
  • Reply 86 of 146

    At the end of the day, the book or movie is supposed to be a biography. A good biography needs to show all parts of Steve – warts and all. That is what I expect. If it goes too far one way or the other then it's just not a good biography.

     

    Those closest to Steve probably saw more of his best qualities, which might make depictions of his less desirable qualities sting a bit. From anything that I've read about Steve from the early years, at times he wasn't as pleasant to be around so it's natural for the book and movie to depict that. If they don't it's fiction.

     

    When he came back to Apple in '97 he was more mature and a far better leader to help save Apple and bring it to an extremely profitable company.

     

    I'm an Apple guy. I think that Steve was a genius – but he had his flaws as we all do. I'm prepared to take the good with bad, I just hope that it's honest and balanced.

  • Reply 87 of 146
    Don't know why he apologized, he was spot on.

    You have no.clue what you are talking about. Go get yourself a good education before you post such moronic statements.
  • Reply 88 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post





    Well said!



    Agreed.

  • Reply 89 of 146
    s!ke wrote: »
    I wonder if Cook will also apologize. I think he should as well. But probably not. :( sigh

    Lol. Give it a rest. Cook called out greedy people profiting off of ruining a dead mans reputation. That's commendable. And he didn't even name names, nor use any inflammatory language. He did use the rather neutral and ACCURATE "opportunistic."

    Sorkin however, lied and bashed, using inflammatory language and citing "facts" that already have been debunked.

    Cook deserves respect. Sorkin deserves shame. That's how it works. And that's why he is the only one who needs to apologize.

    life 101
  • Reply 90 of 146
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,378moderator
    mnbob1 wrote: »
    Since Cook wasn't speaking directly about Sorkin's film there is no need for an apology to him. His comments were all encompassing of the garbage that has continued to spew out. October 5th is the 4th anniversary of Steve's death. We will most likely see a lot of additional material. The fact that Sorkin's film is releasing near this date does indeed seem a bit opportunistic. I don't think it's a coincidence.

    This movie is based on the Isaacson book, although the trailers don't look much like what was in the book. Isaacson is being paid millions for the movie rights. The book was opportunistic as it was published just over 2 weeks after Steve died and especially poor considering the contents.

    Cook is absolutely right to condemn all of these attempts to cash in while painting their own fictional tales. The way they go about it is to pick a narrative - Haunted Empire about Apple trying but failing to run on Steve's legacy, Gibney's documentary trying to frame the question of the human cost in technology (employees, mental health, family) with Apple as the context, Isaacson's book about Steve being a narcissist - and then they pick out the negative parts of Apple's and Steve's history to justify the narrative. Real life doesn't fit the same story arcs that you get in fiction so the dramatists have to twist and select portions of reality to fit into something they think will be compelling and that will leave a simple message for viewers to take away from the movie. If they make it too complex with conflicting ideas then it waters down the core theme because the audience can't just put everything into neat little boxes. If they were more honest then it wouldn't be so bad but they just tell everything that fits the theme that they've chosen and since Apple is doing extremely well, focusing on negative themes is what sells.

    While Apple uses overseas labor to get the manufacturing scale and efficiency to be competitive in their industry, this kind of exploitation isn't necessary in the movie industry with subject matter and Apple would build products elsewhere if it wasn't available in Asia. Sorkin was free to make a movie and write a script on all of the available subject matter from Apple's and Steve's history and could have conducted exclusive interviews of his own. He didn't have to line Isaacson's pockets any more; Isaacson doesn't deserve anywhere near the multiple millions he's getting from the amateur trash he wrote. The most value comes from Steve's first-hand accounts but Isaacson's only part in this was being present while he said what he wanted to say.
  • Reply 91 of 146
    bilbo63 wrote: »
    At the end of the day, the book or movie is supposed to be a biography. A good biography needs to show all parts of Steve – warts and all. That is what I expect. If it goes too far one way or the other then it's just not a good biography.

    Those closest to Steve probably saw more of his best qualities, which might make depictions of his less desirable qualities sting a bit. From anything that I've read about Steve from the early years, at times he wasn't as pleasant to be around so it's natural for the book and movie to depict that. If they don't it's fiction.

    When he came back to Apple in '97 he was more mature and a far better leader to help save Apple and bring it to an extremely profitable company.

    I'm an Apple guy. I think that Steve was a genius – but he had his flaws as we all do. I'm prepared to take the good with bad, I just hope that it's honest and balanced.

    Of course you take the good and bad...WHEN ITS TRUE.

    Woz and others have already said that every piece of dialog between themselves and jobs in the movie were fabricated.

    You know...MADE UP. LIES.

    it's an opportunistic, purposefully inaccurate movie that just happens to have a good actor in it.

    Because it has Jobs' name, it ill likely succeed. But it doesn't deserve to.
  • Reply 92 of 146
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member

    It's been said that "there is a fine line between genius and insanity" and I think a lot of the greatest men and women of our time likely reside 'on that line'. If your exposure to Steve Jobs only presented the "insanity" side then, of course, he might be perceived as "an asshole". (btw,thanks for that post, Dick. It sounded just like my oldest daughter and gave me a much needed chuckle after 2 pages of this thread)

     

    If, on the other hand, you had the opportunity to be associated with Steve on a daily basis, you would be able to see the real genius that was Steve Jobs. I can only dream of what a wonderful experience that might have been. To see both sides of Steve would make it much easier (and more accurate) to form an opinion about "who Steve really was". The problem with any movie or book is that they are usually one person's opinion and very few people are going to have "all the facts" about Steve so we have to, I think, take this into consideration when we judge any media coverage about him. I will watch, with interest, the new movie about Steve when it comes to TV but I don't expect to "learn" any new "facts" about him.  ;) 

  • Reply 93 of 146
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post





    Of course you take the good and bad...WHEN ITS TRUE.



    Woz and others have already said that every piece of dialog between themselves and jobs in the movie were fabricated.



    You know...MADE UP. LIES.



    it's an opportunistic, purposefully inaccurate movie that just happens to have a good actor in it.



    Because it has Jobs' name, it ill likely succeed. But it doesn't deserve to.



    True, I believe that Woz did say some of the dialogue was fabricated.

     

    As I recall Woz and others with first-hand knowledge also said that the movie (and book) was quite accurate and captured the spirit rather well in their opinion. At least as far as their experience with Steve at that time.

     

    Having not seen the movie, my hope is that it is as balanced and accurate as possible.

  • Reply 94 of 146
    bilbo63 wrote: »
    9secondko wrote: »
    Of course you take the good and bad...WHEN ITS TRUE.


    Woz and others have already said that every piece of dialog between themselves and jobs in the movie were fabricated.


    You know...MADE UP. LIES.


    it's an opportunistic, purposefully inaccurate movie that just happens to have a good actor in it.


    Because it has Jobs' name, it ill likely succeed. But it doesn't deserve to.


    True, I believe that Woz did say some of the dialogue was fabricated.

    As I recall Woz and others with first-hand knowledge also said that the movie (and book) was quite accurate and captured the spirit rather well in their opinion. At least as far as their experience with Steve at that time.

    Having not seen the movie, my hope is that it is as balanced and accurate as possible.

    Since the real-life exchanges [dialog] between Woz and Jobs was not filmed or otherwise recorded -- of course it had to be fabricated -- or there would be no conversations in the movie.

    @9secondko: Think back about dialogs you've had an hour, day or week ago -- can you recount them accurately -- or must you fabricate them in order to tell your story?

    ... Now, what was that I was just saying  :???:
     
  • Reply 95 of 146
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Well said!

    And thanks for the eyewitness report from the front lines, what, 35 years ago?

    I imagine he was "always on," as they say in Hollywood. Full of himself, in other words. Justified by his accomplishments? That's not what I'm saying, since I wasn't one of his collateral damaged ones.

    I guess I'm going to have to read Becoming Steve Jobs. The only reason to talk about all this personal stuff is to see what we can learn about the coming wearable/pocketable PC revolution, to keep the vision going.
  • Reply 96 of 146
    ronboronbo Posts: 669member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

     

     

    Without good reason? Why do people open their mouth when they don't have a clue. I'll give you a hint: Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine

    I'll even give you a link to educate yourself, why TC did shoot first.

    http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/09/04/kim-gibney-jobs




    We'll trade hints then. Here's yours: Sorkin didn't do "Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine". By all accounts, Sorkin's work is apparently a pretty decent account of Jobs. And by the couple of accounts I've read of "Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine", that filmmaker is kind of an ass-hat. Mr. Cook is one of the most visible and powerful people in business. Someone with that kind of power should be very, very careful with cutting remarks. Restraint is a virtue. As can be seen here, Sorkin may have (read: clearly did) over-react, but he fired the second shot, not the first. Notice the reactions to my own statement that people might want to lower their heat level, which are angry and insulting. Thanks for proving my point. Crips vs Bloods. If you don't visibly wave the right gang colors, people get hysterical and hateful.

  • Reply 97 of 146
    john.b wrote: »
    Dude realized he was alienating the one demographic likely to actually pay to see his movie.

    Exactly. Started out thinking free publicity then realized his miscalculation
  • Reply 98 of 146
    flaneur wrote: »
    Well said!

    And thanks for the eyewitness report from the front lines, what, 35 years ago?

    I imagine he was "always on," as they say in Hollywood. Full of himself, in other words. Justified by his accomplishments? That's not what I'm saying, since I wasn't one of his collateral damaged ones.

    I guess I'm going to have to read Becoming Steve Jobs. The only reason to talk about all this personal stuff is to see what we can learn about the coming wearable/pocketable PC revolution, to keep the vision going.

    Again, I didn't have a lot of direct contact with Steve Jobs ... But I wouldn't describe him as: "always on", "full of himself" or "justified by his accomplishments".

    Rather, he was extremely focused -- and (sometimes rudely) dismissive with someone not on the same wavelength.


    I've posted these stories before -- but they illustrate my encounters with Steve Jobs:


    I was giving a demo of an Apple ][ to about a dozen people in the front pod of our Sunnyvale store ... From the back of the group a loud voice said: "You're doing it wrong." Jobs pushed to the front, took over -- and gave the best damn Apple ][ demo I'd seen. (Woz and his younger brother Mark could give some pretty great demos, too).

    I was in a meeting with a room full of people (I think it was at Apple HQ). There was a Q&A (or somesuch) and Jobs responded to someone: "Never trust anyone over 40."

    I had just turned 40 and quit a 16 1/2 year career at IBM to participate in the microcomputer revolution.


    Later, It occurred to me that I should have gone to work at Apple -- rather than opening computer stores. Looking back, I wouldn't have lasted a month!
      
  • Reply 99 of 146
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Again, I didn't have a lot of direct contact with Steve Jobs ... But I wouldn't describe him as: "always on", "full of himself" or "justified by his accomplishments".

    Rather, he was extremely focused -- and (sometimes rudely) dismissive with someone not on the same wavelength.


    I've posted these stories before -- but they illustrate my encounters with Steve Jobs:


    I was giving a demo of an Apple ][ to about a dozen people in the front pod of our Sunnyvale store ... From the back of the group a loud voice said: "You're doing it wrong." Jobs pushed to the front, took over -- and gave the best damn Apple ][ demo I'd seen. (Woz and his younger brother Mark could give some pretty great demos, too).

    I was in a meeting with a room full of people (I think it was at Apple HQ). There was a Q&A (or somesuch) and Jobs responded to someone: "Never trust anyone over 40."

    I had just turned 40 and quit a 16 1/2 year career at IBM to participate in the microcomputer revolution.


    Later, It occurred to me that I should have gone to work at Apple -- rather than opening computer stores. Looking back, I wouldn't have lasted a month!
      

    Ha. I see what you mean. Not exactly a charmer, then.

    By the way, in the late sixties, as I'm sure you recall, it was "never trust anybody over thirty." Youth can be cruel.
  • Reply 100 of 146
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,867moderator
    flaneur wrote: »
    Yes, and the lesson is that the young megalomaniac who is going on to start a beneficial revolution will probably be that kind of person.

    He will run an enterprise focused on goals unimagined by others around him. He'll make terrible mistakes and hurt people right and left, but he'll also be able to attract and motivate people to do "the best work of their lives."

    He'll attract and hold geniuses, found an empire of intelligence to match their collective vision. Toward the people around him who are working on the vision, he'll be capable of generosity to match his earlier selfishness. It could be a law of character dynamics. Hard to say, since we get to see so few examples ot it working.

    As a kind of proof, consider how he attracted the brilliant designers that Apple has, and the brilliant operations people, or the software, PR or advertising people, and then try to imagine any of them, Jony Ive say, ever being able to found Apple 1 or 2 in a million years. And then try to imagine any of them sticking with a Bill Gates or a Steve Ballmer.

    It takes a village, as Hillary said, but it also takes a mad and magnanimous shaman to inspire and lead. Alex Gibney missed the part where the Buddhist monk has to whack the disciple with a bamboo stick to teach compassion.

    There are some who grok the situation, such as you, sir. And others who never will. Excellent post!
Sign In or Register to comment.