Who here has read Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. I've always liked that idea, not the one where we suddenly talk kindly about someone simply because they are dead, but we accept them in death the way we accepted them in life: as a person.
I've read the entire Ender series and the Bean series. The speaker for the dead concept was one that stuck in my mind too. But it would have to be someone really good at it to make it work, else it could be a disaster.
Very well. My suggestion to you is to simply avoid the movie, articles, blogs, and forums that discuss it if you have such a big problem with a screenwriter writing a dramatic piece that even he says isn't a biopic. I'll wait for the reviews to roll in and then judge based on critics and word of mouth of those whose previous recommendations I've come to trust (sometimes because their opinion will be opposite of mine), at which point I'll decide to see it in the theater, at home, or not at all.
Fair enough. I go to movies solely for the purposes of being entertained, and never take the stuff too seriously. Particularly non-fictional ones, such as documentaries and biopics.
For irony, bathos, pathos, lump in the throat, reflection and learning about life, etc. I tend to rely on the real world and news (such as it is).
...Perhaps, we can also admit that in the absence of a 24/7 video record of everyone that a historical figure dealt with, we may not have an inaccurate picture of the historical figure.
...
Earlier, I implied that a 24/7 video record was required to have accurate records of historical figures. Although such a record is necessary, it is not sufficient. There was a time when we believed that two people given the same set of facts would arrive at the same conclusion. We now know this to be not the case. We each process the facts available to us through filters borne of a lifetime of experiences. No matter what you may think you may know about Steve Jobs the man, the Steve Jobs the man of your memory is the product of the information available to you processed through your filters.
You make an interesting point about a method for a verifiable historical record.
I will only just point out that with the technology available these days, unfortunately that is seems pretty much impossible. Video and photographic evidence can be manipulated to deceive. It's gotten good enough that people have a very difficult time separating fact from fiction.
Was the picture photoshopped? Was the video shot on a green screen? It's getting awfully hard to tell the difference anymore.
I am sure there is a technical solution of some sort, but hopefully you understand where I am going with my point.
Not according to Sorkin. He clearly stated it's not a biopic, that it's something else. This isn't a Ken Burns documentary, this is a feature film.
The movie is about a man that I worship like a god.
I support your right to that choice but I see that as a problem.
I would absolutely love for Steve Jobs to be absolutely accurate. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Impossible. Even if there were invisible film crews recording the backstage events of these three product launches in real time, even a single cut in the footage to remove a lull in the time to keep the story going or cutting out a couple minutes because Steve Jobs had to evacuate his bowels before going on stage would be prevent it being "absolutely accurate." This is drama. The goal is to entertain, and since this is based on the life of a person he will try to capture the essence of the man in a two hour time window. Think about that. Even the fictional story of Mark Watney couldn't be "absolutely accurate" to the novel in which it was pulled. Your Jobsianity is not allowing you to think about this in a rational way, hence, why I see that as a problem.
You almost got it. If you realized that's what makes it the perfect opportunistic backstabber reference, you would be all the way there.
My references to Shakespeare's Caesar is simply to point out that historical drama is fiction, based on historical fact but not a documentary or a history book.
Not according to Sorkin. He clearly stated it's not a biopic, that it's something else. This isn't a Ken Burns documentary, this is a feature film.
I support your right to that choice but I see that as a problem.
Impossible. Even if there were invisible film crews recording the backstage events of these three product launches in real time, even a single cut in the footage to remove a lull in the time to keep the story going or cutting out a couple minutes because Steve Jobs had to evacuate his bowels before going on stage would be prevent it being "absolutely accurate." This is drama. The goal is to entertain, and since this is based on the life of a person he will try to capture the essence of the man in a two hour time window. Think about that. Even the fictional story of Mark Watney couldn't be "absolutely accurate" to the novel in which it was pulled. Your Jobsianity is not allowing you to think about this in a rational way, hence, why I see that as a problem.
I think this article gives a good summary of the intent of the movie. There are people here taking took much of a hard-nosed position about what they feel the movie should've been.
What have you seen about this film that can be defined a ridiculous distortion? From the trailers and my long history of what I've read it all seems to fit with how I'd describe the man.
—Oh, like having Chrisann backstage of the Macintosh introduction, putting the paternity squeeze on Steve at that critical time. Legit time-shifting for dramatic effect, right?
—Or "Woz" saying that the GUI is "stolen." Could be more complex in context—I just read about this one—but the naive viewer had better not walk away with that theft meme in his/her head alone. Sorkin's willingness to play the 17-cents-an-hour Chinese worker card makes his factual knowledge highly suspect.
—In the trailer, you hear Jobs (or somone) talking about a "tectonic" shift, supposedly some dialogue from the 80s. Gross anachonism, in my opinion. Nobody was blending metaphors like that in the 80s. Language, Sorkin's stock in trade, is a base currency to be spent wherever one needs effect.
The point is that this little TV movie/soap opera dramatic form is going to be entertaining for people who only want to be entertained, but for people who cared about Steve Jobs and what his life meant to them (and us and Apple), it's going way into right field where strife and conflict and low emotional tensions rule the events. In TV land all stories become telenovelas.
Coming so soon after Steve's death, before any decent, calm and thoughtful ducumentaries have been done that really grasp the essance of his ability "to see around corners in a revolutionary way," as Tim Cook said in effect, the "Steve Jobs" movie seems like an exploitative short-circuit. Every twisted portrait makes it harder to get the real story out of what Jobs did.
Thanks for asking. To be continued or corrected after I see the movie.
Ok so if this is not based on actual facts then there shouldn't be any problem placing that disclaimer at the front of the movie then. That solves that problem "this movie is loosely based on fictional situations that may or may not have actually taken place" That works for me
Now should they have done it? There's one way to know for sure! Let's make a movie of Sorkin and add not only the actual stupid things he did say but for drantic purpose make up a bunch more and put it out. Let see if this works both ways. Will he object to us taking liberties with his life story using shit that "may or may not" have actually happened? If he's ok with widely made up crap and the movie is just his name. Will he feel ok with that? Any if he isn't ok can we wait till HE'S dead then put it out then so they'll be no push back?
What if his Hollywood elitist don't like it? Does it still get to come out against their objections?
Just say in'. Good for the goose must be good for the gander.
—Oh, like having Chrisann backstage of the Macintosh introduction, putting the paternity squeeze on Steve at that critical time. Legit time-shifting for dramatic effect, right?
—Or "Woz" saying that the GUI is "stolen." Could be more complex in context—I just read about this one—but the naive viewer had better not walk away with that theft meme in his/her head alone. Sorkin's willingness to play the 17-cents-an-hour Chinese worker card makes his factual knowledge highly suspect.
—In the trailer, you hear Jobs (or somone) talking about a "tectonic" shift, supposedly some dialogue from the 80s. Gross anachonism, in my opinion. Nobody was blending metaphors like that in the 80s. Language, Sorkin's stock in trade, is a base currency to be spent wherever one needs effect.
The point is that this little TV movie/soap opera dramatic form is going to be entertaining for people who only want to be entertained, but for people who cared about Steve Jobs and what his life meant to them (and us and Apple), it's going way into right field where strife and conflict and low emotional tensions rule the events. In TV land all stories become telenovelas.
Coming so soon after Steve's death, before any decent, calm and thoughtful ducumentaries have been done that really grasp the essance of his ability "to see around corners in a revolutionary way," as Tim Cook said in effect, the "Steve Jobs" movie seems like an exploitative short-circuit. Every twisted portrait makes it harder to get the real story out of what Jobs did.
Thanks for asking. To be continued or corrected after I see the movie.
Being quite familiar with SJ's appearance, I'm really going to have to suspend my disbelief to buy Michael Fassbender as Steve. To my eye there is zero resemblance. That said, I like Isaacson's book (didn't love it) and am curious to see this on the big screen.
So you are okay with telling lies and half truths about a dead man just as long as its entertaining? Pathetic.
Lots of creative work is a dramatization of real life in some way. Songs written about real relationships are more or less the same approach. Some songs even bear the name of the real-life subject.
Any film that isn't presented as a documentary should be assumed to take creative license to create a compelling story.
Just because you want a documentary doesn't mean filmmakers should be slammed for creating a drama.
Seriously, I don't think this kind of pictorial metaphorizing happened until people's brains got saturated with narrative syntax due to increasing exposure to electronic information as opposed to exposure to static print.
People no longer say "in the future," they say "moving forward." (Abstract print concept vs. narrative pictorial.)
People say "at the end of the day" instead of "in the final result." They "kick the can down the road," or "step up to the plate," though this last one might be a bit older and serve as a template.
"Tectonic shift" replaces "paradigm shift" only a few years ago, as far as I know. It conjures a picture of continent formation, while the abstract and colorless "paradigm shift" comes from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as you probably know, which Steve Jobs read in the 70s.
Hollywood period dialogue is always full of anachronisms because there is almost no awareness of language as an analyzable, evolving medium. It's all about dramatic effect.
Being quite familiar with SJ's appearance, I'm really going to have to suspend my disbelief to buy Michael Fassbender as Steve. To my eye there is zero resemblance. That said, I like Isaacson's book (didn't love it) and am curious to see this on the big screen.
Are you saying this movie is based on Isaacson's book? :???:
—Oh, like having Chrisann backstage of the Macintosh introduction, putting the paternity squeeze on Steve at that critical time. Legit time-shifting for dramatic effect, right?.
Yes! That's exactly what should be done in every film whose purpose is entertainment. Why do you have a problem with this at all? It seems absolutely silly to say, "Well, sure, he did have a paternity issue, but it didn't happen that very moment, and those weren't the exact style of jeans Jobs was wearing, and he probably had more people backstage that talked to him before he went on stage, so I don't care if the essence of the man was accurately captured or if the movie was entertaining with a solid pacing." Don't you think that's just ridiculously pedantic to want something that you know very well the movie neither set out to do, nor should do?
You do know they also lump secondary characters together into others, remove scenes, and take many other liberties in order to make a movie. How exactly do you expect this to be an entertaining 2 hour, 120 page scripted drama of a man whose life spanned over 56 years without editing and without the benefit of having filmed every fucking moment of his life? This isn't The Truman Show.
Yes! That's exactly what should be done in every film whose purpose is entertainment. Why do you have a problem with this at all? It seems absolutely silly to say, "Well, sure, he did have a paternity issue, but it didn't happen that very moment, and those weren't the exact style of jeans Jobs was wearing, and he probably had more people backstage that talked to him before he went on stage, so I don't care if the essence of the man was accurately captured or if the movie was entertaining with a solid pacing." Don't you think that's just ridiculously pedantic to want something that you know very well the movie neither set out to do, nor should do?
You are right about the ddeails, but I "have a problem with this" because I don't think the life or some slices of the life of Steve Jobs are fit subjects for the entertainment of the Apple hating, Steve Jobs hating, corporation hating masses, not to mention the Apple and Jobs worshipping masses. It's exploitation. The movie shouldn't have even been considered, but this is a crass, exploitative culture that will stick cameras in your toddlers' faces if you're famous and the pics can be sold. The media beast must be fed, and Hollywood will dive into the dumpsters of your trash company if necessary.
Steve isn't around to tell his side of the story. Put yourself in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates. "Opportunistic" is being restrained in describing this movie.
I start from the premise that entertainment is not a higher value than understanding. You can call that pedantic, but I say with the last two Jobs movies we are further away from understanding the change that the portable computer as an art form has effected right before our unseeing eyes. Bill Gates and Woz will love this movie and they'll still not know what Steve meant by "great products" and "good taste." Neither will millions of others around the world.
[quote name="Flaneur" url="/t/188655/review-steve-jobs-an-electric-depiction-of-apples-enigmatic-founder/80#post_2785784"] You are right about the ddeails, but I "have a problem with this" because I don't think the life or some slices of the life of Steve Jobs are fit subjects for the [I]entertainment[/I] of the Apple hating, Steve Jobs hating, corporation hating masses, not to mention the Apple and Jobs worshipping masses. It's exploitation. The movie shouldn't have even been considered, but this is a crass, exploitative culture that will stick cameras in your toddlers' faces if your famous and the pics can be sold. The media beast must be fed, and Hollywood will dive into the dumpsters of your trash company if necessary.[/QUOTE]
So you'd be OK with a film that was sanctioned and paid for by Apple, that approved everything with Apple, and that only said the nice things about Steve Jobs? That sounds considerably more exploitive than a film that is attempting to embody Steve Jobs in a 2 hour timespan.
[QUOTE]Steve isn't around to tell his side of the story. Put yourself in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates. "Opportunistic" is being restrained in describing this movie.[/QUOTE]
And? That also means you're against the movie [I]Lincoln[/I] or [I]Amistad[/I] because none of the many actual people that existed are alive to tell their side of the story and their desendants may not like it. Really?! Did you take the same umbrage with the movie [I]Tombstone, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Apollo 13, Hotel Rwanda, Erin Brockovich[/I], or any of the countless amazing films that were made about real life people, none of which are the "absolute truth."
[QUOTE]Bill Gates and Woz will love this movie and they'll still not know what Steve meant by "great products" and "good taste." Neither will millions of others around the world.[/QUOTE]
That's quite a statement. You make comments about not knowing Steve Jobs and comments about putting myself "in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates," and yet you don't do the same for Woz of Gates where you make an absolute statement about these real — and still living, my I remind you — people for whom I assume you have no spoken to about the film. Has Bill Gates even seen the movie at this point?
You also claim "millions of others around the world" won't know what Steve Jobs meant by "great products" and "good taste". Because of this movie? How so? From the trailer it sure does look like Fassbender as Jobs is very focused on changing the world with these product announcements. I'd argue that's what makes Sorkin three-act structure about the minutes right before the aforementioned product announcements such a brilliant way to show you that side of the man. His focus. His drive. His obsessive concern for making something great right down to the finest detail; which is the opposite of what you propose this film will do.
My understanding is the core source of the script was the book. Bare in mind it's been Sorkin-ized.
I didn't read Isaacson's book (nor have I seen any movies about Jobs since his death), but I did read more than a few comments about Isaacson's book. I don't recall the biography talking about the backstage events of those three product announcements, but as I stated, I didn't read it.
I didn't read Isaacson's book (nor have I seen any movies about Jobs since his death), but I did read more than a few comments about Isaacson's book. I don't recall the biography talking about the backstage events of those three product announcements, but as I stated, I didn't read it.
Isaacson's book wasn't structured that way but adapting a book to a screenplay requires dramatic licence. That's my assumption.
Comments
Who here has read Speaker for the Dead by Orson Scott Card. I've always liked that idea, not the one where we suddenly talk kindly about someone simply because they are dead, but we accept them in death the way we accepted them in life: as a person.
I've read the entire Ender series and the Bean series. The speaker for the dead concept was one that stuck in my mind too. But it would have to be someone really good at it to make it work, else it could be a disaster.
Fair enough. I go to movies solely for the purposes of being entertained, and never take the stuff too seriously. Particularly non-fictional ones, such as documentaries and biopics.
For irony, bathos, pathos, lump in the throat, reflection and learning about life, etc. I tend to rely on the real world and news (such as it is).
Earlier, I implied that a 24/7 video record was required to have accurate records of historical figures. Although such a record is necessary, it is not sufficient. There was a time when we believed that two people given the same set of facts would arrive at the same conclusion. We now know this to be not the case. We each process the facts available to us through filters borne of a lifetime of experiences. No matter what you may think you may know about Steve Jobs the man, the Steve Jobs the man of your memory is the product of the information available to you processed through your filters.
You make an interesting point about a method for a verifiable historical record.
I will only just point out that with the technology available these days, unfortunately that is seems pretty much impossible. Video and photographic evidence can be manipulated to deceive. It's gotten good enough that people have a very difficult time separating fact from fiction.
Was the picture photoshopped? Was the video shot on a green screen? It's getting awfully hard to tell the difference anymore.
I am sure there is a technical solution of some sort, but hopefully you understand where I am going with my point.
Not according to Sorkin. He clearly stated it's not a biopic, that it's something else. This isn't a Ken Burns documentary, this is a feature film.
I support your right to that choice but I see that as a problem.
Impossible. Even if there were invisible film crews recording the backstage events of these three product launches in real time, even a single cut in the footage to remove a lull in the time to keep the story going or cutting out a couple minutes because Steve Jobs had to evacuate his bowels before going on stage would be prevent it being "absolutely accurate." This is drama. The goal is to entertain, and since this is based on the life of a person he will try to capture the essence of the man in a two hour time window. Think about that. Even the fictional story of Mark Watney couldn't be "absolutely accurate" to the novel in which it was pulled. Your Jobsianity is not allowing you to think about this in a rational way, hence, why I see that as a problem.
My references to Shakespeare's Caesar is simply to point out that historical drama is fiction, based on historical fact but not a documentary or a history book.
I think this article gives a good summary of the intent of the movie. There are people here taking took much of a hard-nosed position about what they feel the movie should've been.
http://usat.ly/1RoHfzF
I can't speak to Burns's documentaries on the civil war or baseball, but the one on jazz was a biased, narrow, shallow piece of work.
—Oh, like having Chrisann backstage of the Macintosh introduction, putting the paternity squeeze on Steve at that critical time. Legit time-shifting for dramatic effect, right?
—Or "Woz" saying that the GUI is "stolen." Could be more complex in context—I just read about this one—but the naive viewer had better not walk away with that theft meme in his/her head alone. Sorkin's willingness to play the 17-cents-an-hour Chinese worker card makes his factual knowledge highly suspect.
—In the trailer, you hear Jobs (or somone) talking about a "tectonic" shift, supposedly some dialogue from the 80s. Gross anachonism, in my opinion. Nobody was blending metaphors like that in the 80s. Language, Sorkin's stock in trade, is a base currency to be spent wherever one needs effect.
The point is that this little TV movie/soap opera dramatic form is going to be entertaining for people who only want to be entertained, but for people who cared about Steve Jobs and what his life meant to them (and us and Apple), it's going way into right field where strife and conflict and low emotional tensions rule the events. In TV land all stories become telenovelas.
Coming so soon after Steve's death, before any decent, calm and thoughtful ducumentaries have been done that really grasp the essance of his ability "to see around corners in a revolutionary way," as Tim Cook said in effect, the "Steve Jobs" movie seems like an exploitative short-circuit. Every twisted portrait makes it harder to get the real story out of what Jobs did.
Thanks for asking. To be continued or corrected after I see the movie.
"this movie is loosely based on fictional situations that may or may not have actually taken place"
That works for me
Now should they have done it? There's one way to know for sure! Let's make a movie of Sorkin and add not only the actual stupid things he did say but for drantic purpose make up a bunch more and put it out. Let see if this works both ways. Will he object to us taking liberties with his life story using shit that "may or may not" have actually happened? If he's ok with widely made up crap and the movie is just his name. Will he feel ok with that? Any if he isn't ok can we wait till HE'S dead then put it out then so they'll be no push back?
What if his Hollywood elitist don't like it? Does it still get to come out against their objections?
Just say in'. Good for the goose must be good for the gander.
Was metaphorical speech invented in 1990?
Lots of creative work is a dramatization of real life in some way. Songs written about real relationships are more or less the same approach. Some songs even bear the name of the real-life subject.
Any film that isn't presented as a documentary should be assumed to take creative license to create a compelling story.
Just because you want a documentary doesn't mean filmmakers should be slammed for creating a drama.
Later in the decade, smart asd.
Seriously, I don't think this kind of pictorial metaphorizing happened until people's brains got saturated with narrative syntax due to increasing exposure to electronic information as opposed to exposure to static print.
People no longer say "in the future," they say "moving forward." (Abstract print concept vs. narrative pictorial.)
People say "at the end of the day" instead of "in the final result." They "kick the can down the road," or "step up to the plate," though this last one might be a bit older and serve as a template.
"Tectonic shift" replaces "paradigm shift" only a few years ago, as far as I know. It conjures a picture of continent formation, while the abstract and colorless "paradigm shift" comes from The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as you probably know, which Steve Jobs read in the 70s.
Hollywood period dialogue is always full of anachronisms because there is almost no awareness of language as an analyzable, evolving medium. It's all about dramatic effect.
Are you saying this movie is based on Isaacson's book? :???:
Yes! That's exactly what should be done in every film whose purpose is entertainment. Why do you have a problem with this at all? It seems absolutely silly to say, "Well, sure, he did have a paternity issue, but it didn't happen that very moment, and those weren't the exact style of jeans Jobs was wearing, and he probably had more people backstage that talked to him before he went on stage, so I don't care if the essence of the man was accurately captured or if the movie was entertaining with a solid pacing." Don't you think that's just ridiculously pedantic to want something that you know very well the movie neither set out to do, nor should do?
You do know they also lump secondary characters together into others, remove scenes, and take many other liberties in order to make a movie. How exactly do you expect this to be an entertaining 2 hour, 120 page scripted drama of a man whose life spanned over 56 years without editing and without the benefit of having filmed every fucking moment of his life? This isn't The Truman Show.
You are right about the ddeails, but I "have a problem with this" because I don't think the life or some slices of the life of Steve Jobs are fit subjects for the entertainment of the Apple hating, Steve Jobs hating, corporation hating masses, not to mention the Apple and Jobs worshipping masses. It's exploitation. The movie shouldn't have even been considered, but this is a crass, exploitative culture that will stick cameras in your toddlers' faces if you're famous and the pics can be sold. The media beast must be fed, and Hollywood will dive into the dumpsters of your trash company if necessary.
Steve isn't around to tell his side of the story. Put yourself in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates. "Opportunistic" is being restrained in describing this movie.
I start from the premise that entertainment is not a higher value than understanding. You can call that pedantic, but I say with the last two Jobs movies we are further away from understanding the change that the portable computer as an art form has effected right before our unseeing eyes. Bill Gates and Woz will love this movie and they'll still not know what Steve meant by "great products" and "good taste." Neither will millions of others around the world.
Are you saying this movie is based on Isaacson's book?
My understanding is the core source of the script was the book. Bare in mind it's been Sorkin-ized.
You are right about the ddeails, but I "have a problem with this" because I don't think the life or some slices of the life of Steve Jobs are fit subjects for the [I]entertainment[/I] of the Apple hating, Steve Jobs hating, corporation hating masses, not to mention the Apple and Jobs worshipping masses. It's exploitation. The movie shouldn't have even been considered, but this is a crass, exploitative culture that will stick cameras in your toddlers' faces if your famous and the pics can be sold. The media beast must be fed, and Hollywood will dive into the dumpsters of your trash company if necessary.[/QUOTE]
So you'd be OK with a film that was sanctioned and paid for by Apple, that approved everything with Apple, and that only said the nice things about Steve Jobs? That sounds considerably more exploitive than a film that is attempting to embody Steve Jobs in a 2 hour timespan.
[QUOTE]Steve isn't around to tell his side of the story. Put yourself in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates. "Opportunistic" is being restrained in describing this movie.[/QUOTE]
And? That also means you're against the movie [I]Lincoln[/I] or [I]Amistad[/I] because none of the many actual people that existed are alive to tell their side of the story and their desendants may not like it. Really?! Did you take the same umbrage with the movie [I]Tombstone, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Apollo 13, Hotel Rwanda, Erin Brockovich[/I], or any of the countless amazing films that were made about real life people, none of which are the "absolute truth."
[QUOTE]Bill Gates and Woz will love this movie and they'll still not know what Steve meant by "great products" and "good taste." Neither will millions of others around the world.[/QUOTE]
That's quite a statement. You make comments about not knowing Steve Jobs and comments about putting myself "in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates," and yet you don't do the same for Woz of Gates where you make an absolute statement about these real — and still living, my I remind you — people for whom I assume you have no spoken to about the film. Has Bill Gates even seen the movie at this point?
You also claim "millions of others around the world" won't know what Steve Jobs meant by "great products" and "good taste". Because of this movie? How so? From the trailer it sure does look like Fassbender as Jobs is very focused on changing the world with these product announcements. I'd argue that's what makes Sorkin three-act structure about the minutes right before the aforementioned product announcements such a brilliant way to show you that side of the man. His focus. His drive. His obsessive concern for making something great right down to the finest detail; which is the opposite of what you propose this film will do.
I didn't read Isaacson's book (nor have I seen any movies about Jobs since his death), but I did read more than a few comments about Isaacson's book. I don't recall the biography talking about the backstage events of those three product announcements, but as I stated, I didn't read it.
I didn't read Isaacson's book (nor have I seen any movies about Jobs since his death), but I did read more than a few comments about Isaacson's book. I don't recall the biography talking about the backstage events of those three product announcements, but as I stated, I didn't read it.
Isaacson's book wasn't structured that way but adapting a book to a screenplay requires dramatic licence. That's my assumption.
http://www.macrumors.com/roundup/steve-jobs-movie/