The Pixel Doc's point about time was a dimensional enlargement of the point. We wouldn't see the likes of Schindler's List without enough calming years to go by for us to regain some sanity about the Nazis as human beings rather than cardboard caricatures. Not a bad movie, I'm told, because it was not done as exploitation, i.e., entertainment. (I don't see many fictional movies myself, including biopics; the last one was probably Gandhi, if you can believe that. So that's the kind of contrarian outlier you're dealing with here.)
It's you and others here who've been insisting on the value of this film as entertainment. I'm just saying that our recently departed revolutionary genius is not a fit subject for drama or for Gibney's muckraking because you are going to miss the point of the revolution we're in...
1) You think we need more calming years for a movie about Steve Jobs' life than one about the Holocaust? Please fucking tell me that's not what you meant!
2) Schindler's List clearly means to entertain. It wouldn't be one of the best films ever made if it wasn't. I've seen it a number of times and I get choked up each time.
3) You're really not seen any films not classified as a documentary since Ghandi? I call shenanigans on that, and if that really is true then it makes clear you are not a voice worth hearing on this film. Actual moviegoers are the voices that will decide whether this movie is worth my time and movie. I watch a lot movies. I love the medium. I love the effort that goes into writing a script, filming, editing, and the hundreds, into thousands, of people involved. This is an amazing medium that personifies the modern world... that required revolutionary geniuses across the world for over a century to get to this point.
4) You still fail to mention all the films I mention that not only came out while their family and friends still living—BTW, there were plenty of people still alive that survived the Holocaust when Schindler's List came out—but they were still living, of which I've given plenty of examples already.
... or you're going to mislead millions into believing that Jobs was just a great salesman, etc., who has fooled a bunch of iSheep into flocking to his cult, etc., etc.
You (and many others on this forum) holding a man as infallible like you're a devote Catholic and he's the pope; you're the one that is saying it's a cult by your actions. The film will do Jobs justice if it can make him out to be a person. Why do you want so badly for Jobs not to be humanized... not to be human? It's maddening that you perpetuate Apple as a cult while claiming a film about Jobs, and only Jobs, is somehow some taboo topic that you don't want to be seen as a cult.
Jobs has changed the world as much as anyone since Gutenberg, and we need to know how he did that,
So you want the good stuff you already know and none of the bad stuff that makes a Jobs a real, three-dimensional person. With that attitude you may like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise since they make a very clear distinction between good and evil without any actual character development; and you're in luck, as 3 more films and another decade of those shitty, high-grossing films are coming to a theater near you per an announcement today.
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.
You seem to have missed the point that I was making. The point that I was making is that it is impossible. I made a further point--even it it were possible to record a complete video record, it would not make much difference. That is because it is not also what is recorded; but also it is was is perceived. Any two people who view the complete record would filter what they see though their own life and cultural experiences and draw often diametrically opposing conclusions from what they see.
Being opportunistic and being a good movie are not mutually exclusive.
In that case no one will ever be able to make a movie about anyone without being opportunistic. There was a good story to tell, they told it. The movie does a good job at depicting the character of Jobs and that will expose him to a lot of people who don't know him or even have never heard his name. I think it's pretty good if that happens and reducing the movie to an opportunistic experience is unfair. I haven't seen the movie but I guess it will show that he was a genius with an incredible sense of detail and perception, but could be very hard to other people. It's a fascinating story to be told and one that deserves to be made. Jobs transcends Apple anyway and Cook doesn't have to say if he approves or not imo. I think he should watch the film before, as Sorkin said.
1) You think we need more calming years for a movie about Steve Jobs' life than one about the Holocaust? Please fucking tell me that's not what you meant!
2) Schindler's List clearly means to entertain. It wouldn't be one of the best films ever made if it wasn't. I've seen it a number of times and I get choked up each time.
3) You're really not seen any films not classified as a documentary since Ghandi? I call shenanigans on that, and if that really is true then it makes clear you are not a voice worth hearing on this film. Actual moviegoers are the voices that will decide whether this movie is worth my time and movie. I watch a lot movies. I love the medium. I love the effort that goes into writing a script, filming, editing, and the hundreds, into thousands, of people involved. This is an amazing medium that personifies the modern world... that required revolutionary geniuses across the world for over a century to get to this point.
4) You still fail to mention all the films I mention that not only came out while their family and friends still living—BTW, there were plenty of people still alive that survived the Holocaust when Schindler's List came out—but they were still living, of which I've given plenty of examples already.
You (and many others on this forum) holding a man as infallible like you're a devote Catholic and he's the pope; you're the one that is saying it's a cult by your actions. The film will do Jobs justice if it can make him out to be a person. Why do you want so badly for Jobs not to be humanized... not to be human? It's maddening that you perpetuate Apple as a cult while claiming a film about Jobs, and only Jobs, is somehow some taboo topic that you don't want to be seen as a cult.
So you want the good stuff you already know and none of the bad stuff that makes a Jobs a real, three-dimensional person. With that attitude you may like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise since they make a very clear distinction between good and evil without any actual character development; and you're in luck, as 3 more films and another decade of those shitty, high-grossing films are coming to a theater near you per an announcement today.
You're missing the point of what i'm saying, as your last two paragraphs show very well. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't favor a sanitized, positive whitewashing of Steve Jobs's character or life? Why do you keep missing what i'm saying?
I'll tell you why. You don't read well. Your logical mechanisms are overwhelmed by your pictorial and narrative brain. Just what one would expect from overexposure to TV and movies.
I'm particularly open to these cognitive channels, which is why I don't go much to movies or watch television. I don't want others' manufactured images dominating my imagination. If I want images, I make my own with nature as my own particular interest. I look at others' recordings of reality, but I don't care much for Hollywood's nightmares or their commercial exploits of the mass mind.
I figure we have very little time to figure out how Western civilization came up with this messed up system of patriarchy that has dominated us since 5000 BCE and which is now getting more dangerous with new varieties of nuclear-armed fascism. Entertainment in this context is a waste of time.
Jobs was on the right path because his overarching vision or goal was heart and mind extention and amplification, ironically for such a solipsist. What he came up with were tools that people loved to have with them at all times to communicate awareness amongst each other. All this personal crap is just so much People Magazine distracting gossip in comparison. Y'all go ahead and enjoy your entertainment with his transgressions and triumphs. Meanwhile, we got to get to work on the real history of this "tectonic shift." Hint: it's bad news for the 5,000-year reign of the patriarchs.
How many times do I have to tell you that I don't favor a sanitized, positive whitewashing of Steve Jobs's character or life? Why do you keep missing what i'm saying?
You make that claim, but then continue to make comments that show that that's not how you feel. In this most recent post to write, "All this personal crap is just so much People Magazine distracting gossip in comparison." In comparison to what, your ideal white sheet of Apple products? This is about Steve, not about Apple, or Next, or any other company. This is about a man, hence it's a story that will try to capture his essence as a person, which means his flaws, which you say you don't want sanitized while scoffing at the very thought of anything personal about him being included. You don't even see your own hypocrisy.
I'm particularly open to these cognitive channels, which is why I don't go much to movies or watch television. I don't want others' manufactured images dominating my imagination. If I want images, I make my own with nature as my own particular interest.
You actually wrote that with a straight face? :facepalm:
Wow. Slams the best of all the documentaries by Ken Burns. (having to do with American music) And now doesn't even know who wrote "Both Sides Now".
Keep your day job. (hope it doesn't have anything to do with music or American history)
Oh, don't get all worked up. Rock is not the same as jazz, in case you did not realize (although Joni Mitchell's credentials in terms of working with people like Wayne Shorter and Jaco Pastorius is what drew me to her music in the first place -- btw, Burns barely mentioned either, at least not as far as I can recall). My knowledge of the latter is better than the former, because I grew up listening to a lot British Rock and didn't have enough time or access to US Rock. By hindsight, I still prefer British Rock to US Rock, in the aggregate.
I had heard Judy Collins's performance of it before Mitchell's. I assumed Collins had also written it (but see below). It turns out she had only performed it before. Big deal.
I am guessing most of your knowledge and appreciation of jazz is pre-1958. Out of the ten episodes, Burns gets to 1960 and later only by episode 10. And then covers it in an utterly shallow offhand fashion.
You might be well-served by checking up on Ken Burns's knowledge of jazz from the various interviews he gave. It's out there if you want to check it out .(Hint: Very little).
I'm particularly open to these cognitive channels, which is why I don't go much to movies or watch television. I don't want others' manufactured images dominating my imagination. If I want images, I make my own with nature as my own particular interest.
You actually wrote that with a straight face? :facepalm:
I agree with parts of what you've both posted. In particular, I totally get what Flaneur is saying there (although I appreciate the visual medium as much as any other).
What do you find so problematic about that statement that you have to do a facepalm? I am genuinely puzzled.
What do you find so problematic about that statement that you have to do a facepalm? I am genuinely puzzled.
Because it's bullshit, and even worse than that, because he pretends to be an elitist snob by saying that movies and TV shows are above him; and yet I'm sure he'll say he's read plenty of books and listened to music despite each of those mediums are other people's ideas being pushing into your "cognitive channels."
Because it's bullshit, and even worse than that, because he pretends to be an elitist snob by saying that movies and TV shows are above him; and yet I'm sure he'll say he's read plenty of books and listened to music despite each of those mediums are other people's ideas being pushing into your "cognitive channels."
I wonder if you're overreacting. Perhaps because my reaction was different.
I saw no elitist snobbishness there. I also happened to think that books are a little more abstract than movies/TV, and music is probably the most abstract art form of all (but that's a much longer discussion that I am willing to engage in separately, so that I don't bore people to tears).
The Pixel Doc's point about time was a dimensional enlargement of the point. We wouldn't see the likes of Schindler's List without enough calming years to go by for us to regain some sanity about the Nazis as human beings rather than cardboard caricatures. Not a bad movie, I'm told, because it was not done as exploitation, i.e., entertainment. (I don't see many fictional movies myself, including biopics; the last one was probably Gandhi, if you can believe that. So that's the kind of contrarian outlier you're dealing with here.)
....
The Holocaust was part of World War II. World War II caused the deaths of 60 million people. They made movies about World War II during World War II. Film adaptations of the 911 terrorist attack on the US were made while most survivors were still alive and the event was still fresh in the minds of nearly everyone.
In my first post in this thread, I said that I worshipped Steve Jobs like a god. However, I fully understand that he was not a god. A film--even an unflattering film--about Steve Jobs is not blasphemy.
I wonder if you're overreacting. Perhaps because my reaction was different.
I saw no elitist snobbishness there. I also happened to think that books are a little more abstract than movies/TV, and music is probably the most abstract art form of all (but that's a much longer discussion that I am willing to engage in separately, so that I don't bore people to tears).
You don't see it with his comments against works of fiction, his last movie watched was Ghandi, an implication that TV has rotted my brain, that TV and movies make it impossible to acquire knowledge through thinking, then a jump to buzzwords like Weatern civ, patricary, fascism, nuclear-arms race, and a weird comment about "5,000 BCE" which he then concludes all needs to be dealt with before entertainment despite his participation on this forum is entertainment.
It all screams BS, and also confusing that he doesn't see the hypocrisy of his own words and irony of how everything developed under Steve was all designed to make the best possible experience (i.e. we were more entertained by his works than by others). Is he going to say he never saw the long running "I'm A Mac" campaign because he's rather "cognitively channel" Apple's advertising campaign instead of seeing how they work?
If he actually wanted to step out of his personal bubble he'd see that science and technology build upon each other so regulating his world view to only what he can think of—which I've already shown is BS by simply being on this forum—he'd see that it's all built upon each other. Innovators get inspired by the others. Jobs was inspired by HP, Sony, and countless other things that resulted in his achievements, and to take that away from the man is deplorable.
How quickly we forget that Jobs had a yacht built. I'm sure that was purely for utilitarian purposes in case refugees needed a trip from one coast to another¡
I haven't seen much commentary on the movie, not in general release, from people inside Apple.
So you want the movie to talk to people who knew jobs but when it does you dismiss it because they were paid. But any consultant would be paid.
Woz and Sculley both consulted.
Here's the thing about historical drama. It's never a documentary. You can be certain that a movie on Naploean or a play on Caesar will not have the exact words spoken, in the exact order spoken, or even at the exact place they were spoken. As long as you get the gist.
I'm aware they were consulted.
However, what I said still stands.
The ENTIRETY of the dialogue between Jobs' character and this of Sculley and Woz was fabricated. The ENTIRETY.
Both Woz and Sculley confirm this.
Therefore the praise of this movie for its "honesty" is s bit much.
You don't see it with his comments against works of fiction, his last movie watched was Ghandi, an implication that TV has rotted my brain, that TV and movies make it impossible to acquire knowledge through thinking, then a jump to buzzwords like Weatern civ, patricary, fascism, nuclear-arms race, and a weird comment about "5,000 BCE" which he then concludes all needs to be dealt with before entertainment despite his participation on this forum is entertainment.
It all screams BS, and also confusing that he doesn't see the hypocrisy of his own words and irony of how everything developed under Steve was all designed to make the best possible experience (i.e. we were more entertained by his works than by others). Is he going to say he never saw the long running "I'm A Mac" campaign because he's rather "cognitively channel" Apple's advertising campaign instead of seeing how they work?
If he actually wanted to step out of his personal bubble he'd see that science and technology build upon each other so regulating his world view to only what he can think of—which I've already shown is BS by simply being on this forum—he'd see that it's all built upon each other. Innovators get inspired by the others. Jobs was inspired by HP, Sony, and countless other things that resulted in his achievements, and to take that away from the man is deplorable.
How quickly we forget that Jobs had a yacht built. I'm sure that was purely for utilitarian purposes in case refugees needed a trip from one coast to another¡
I believe the last biopic I saw was Gandhi. The last movie I've seen is Gibney's The Man in the Machine. Sorry, like I said, you're dealing with an outlier here, and like you say, not one who should be listened to about film at all.This whole thing started when wigby suggested that Tim Cook objected to "painful truths" in the movie, and I responded that more likely he objected to the dramatic distortions of his friend's life.
That's the only thing I should be sticking with here. Steve Jobs is not a good subject fo be milked for the usual Hollywood emo drama. Expect accusations of exploitation if you use him uhat way.
Of course movies are a worthy art form in themselves. I have a headful of images from Fellini and Kubrick, for example, enough to know that my particular psychology is prone to being hijacked by image-based media. Everybody's different. Some people don't want to be bothered with ideas. Some want to stay clear of images. Whole cultures are based on these preferences or tolerances. Nothing to get worked up about.
I agree with parts of what you've both posted. In particular, I totally get what Flaneur is saying there (although I appreciate the visual medium as much as any other).
What do you find so problematic about that statement that you have to do a facepalm? I am genuinely puzzled.
If flaneur doesn't like visual influences then he or she is missing out on Shakespeare's plays ( one out right now has the lead on Steve jobs playing MacBeth) and plenty of high quality movies. Nor is there a compulsion to watch Hollywood at all, or to watch blockbusters or anything really. There's good television too.
What you do need to avoid is the 24 hour news cycle.
The ENTIRETY of the dialogue between Jobs' character and this of Sculley and Woz was fabricated. The ENTIRETY.
Both Woz and Sculley confirm this.
Therefore the praise of this movie for its "honesty" is s bit much.
That is all. Thank you.
So what. The entirety of Shakespeare's historical drama about Caesar ( I say for the 3rd time) is made up and in a different language than Caesar spoke. This isn't a documentary. As long as the speech gives the gist of what happened then that's what historical fiction does.
Eh, sorry, what? How the **** can a movie about a real person "honest", while making no attempts to be "accurate"?
Come on, AI.
Its quite difficult to be accurate when this means reproducing private conversations that took place 30-35 years ago (mainly back-stage dialogues). However, you may try to reproduce the emotions that a particular conversation transmitted and the impact it had on future events in order to create an honest depiction of real persons and their relationships. I do agree however that Job's life had so many dramatic twists that its absolutely unjustified the need to invent additional ones which clearly contradict the actual facts as revealed by the real persons involved.
I believe the last biopic I saw was Gandhi. The last movie I've seen is Gibney's The Man in the Machine. Sorry, like I said, you're dealing with an outlier here, and like you say, not one who should be listened to about film at all.This whole thing started when wigby suggested that Tim Cook objected to "painful truths" in the movie, and I responded that more likely he objected to the dramatic distortions of his friend's life.
That's the only thing I should be sticking with here. Steve Jobs is not a good subject fo be milked for the usual Hollywood emo drama. Expect accusations of exploitation if you use him uhat way.
Of course movies are a worthy art form in themselves. I have a headful of images from Fellini and Kubrick, for example, enough to know that my particular psychology is prone to being hijacked by image-based media. Everybody's different. Some people don't want to be bothered with ideas. Some want to stay clear of images. Whole cultures are based on these preferences or tolerances. Nothing to get worked up about.
I'm fairly sure that what you understand about Fellini and Kubrick is pretty much nil.
Comments
Jerk.
1) You think we need more calming years for a movie about Steve Jobs' life than one about the Holocaust? Please fucking tell me that's not what you meant!
2) Schindler's List clearly means to entertain. It wouldn't be one of the best films ever made if it wasn't. I've seen it a number of times and I get choked up each time.
3) You're really not seen any films not classified as a documentary since Ghandi? I call shenanigans on that, and if that really is true then it makes clear you are not a voice worth hearing on this film. Actual moviegoers are the voices that will decide whether this movie is worth my time and movie. I watch a lot movies. I love the medium. I love the effort that goes into writing a script, filming, editing, and the hundreds, into thousands, of people involved. This is an amazing medium that personifies the modern world... that required revolutionary geniuses across the world for over a century to get to this point.
4) You still fail to mention all the films I mention that not only came out while their family and friends still living—BTW, there were plenty of people still alive that survived the Holocaust when Schindler's List came out—but they were still living, of which I've given plenty of examples already.
You (and many others on this forum) holding a man as infallible like you're a devote Catholic and he's the pope; you're the one that is saying it's a cult by your actions. The film will do Jobs justice if it can make him out to be a person. Why do you want so badly for Jobs not to be humanized... not to be human? It's maddening that you perpetuate Apple as a cult while claiming a film about Jobs, and only Jobs, is somehow some taboo topic that you don't want to be seen as a cult.
So you want the good stuff you already know and none of the bad stuff that makes a Jobs a real, three-dimensional person. With that attitude you may like Michael Bay's Transformers franchise since they make a very clear distinction between good and evil without any actual character development; and you're in luck, as 3 more films and another decade of those shitty, high-grossing films are coming to a theater near you per an announcement today.
Being opportunistic and being a good movie are not mutually exclusive.
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.
You seem to have missed the point that I was making. The point that I was making is that it is impossible. I made a further point--even it it were possible to record a complete video record, it would not make much difference. That is because it is not also what is recorded; but also it is was is perceived. Any two people who view the complete record would filter what they see though their own life and cultural experiences and draw often diametrically opposing conclusions from what they see.
Right on.
Thanks for the clarification.
You're missing the point of what i'm saying, as your last two paragraphs show very well. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't favor a sanitized, positive whitewashing of Steve Jobs's character or life? Why do you keep missing what i'm saying?
I'll tell you why. You don't read well. Your logical mechanisms are overwhelmed by your pictorial and narrative brain. Just what one would expect from overexposure to TV and movies.
I'm particularly open to these cognitive channels, which is why I don't go much to movies or watch television. I don't want others' manufactured images dominating my imagination. If I want images, I make my own with nature as my own particular interest. I look at others' recordings of reality, but I don't care much for Hollywood's nightmares or their commercial exploits of the mass mind.
I figure we have very little time to figure out how Western civilization came up with this messed up system of patriarchy that has dominated us since 5000 BCE and which is now getting more dangerous with new varieties of nuclear-armed fascism. Entertainment in this context is a waste of time.
Jobs was on the right path because his overarching vision or goal was heart and mind extention and amplification, ironically for such a solipsist. What he came up with were tools that people loved to have with them at all times to communicate awareness amongst each other. All this personal crap is just so much People Magazine distracting gossip in comparison. Y'all go ahead and enjoy your entertainment with his transgressions and triumphs. Meanwhile, we got to get to work on the real history of this "tectonic shift." Hint: it's bad news for the 5,000-year reign of the patriarchs.
You make that claim, but then continue to make comments that show that that's not how you feel. In this most recent post to write, "All this personal crap is just so much People Magazine distracting gossip in comparison." In comparison to what, your ideal white sheet of Apple products? This is about Steve, not about Apple, or Next, or any other company. This is about a man, hence it's a story that will try to capture his essence as a person, which means his flaws, which you say you don't want sanitized while scoffing at the very thought of anything personal about him being included. You don't even see your own hypocrisy.
You actually wrote that with a straight face? :facepalm:
Oh, don't get all worked up. Rock is not the same as jazz, in case you did not realize (although Joni Mitchell's credentials in terms of working with people like Wayne Shorter and Jaco Pastorius is what drew me to her music in the first place -- btw, Burns barely mentioned either, at least not as far as I can recall). My knowledge of the latter is better than the former, because I grew up listening to a lot British Rock and didn't have enough time or access to US Rock. By hindsight, I still prefer British Rock to US Rock, in the aggregate.
I had heard Judy Collins's performance of it before Mitchell's. I assumed Collins had also written it (but see below). It turns out she had only performed it before. Big deal.
I am guessing most of your knowledge and appreciation of jazz is pre-1958. Out of the ten episodes, Burns gets to 1960 and later only by episode 10. And then covers it in an utterly shallow offhand fashion.
You might be well-served by checking up on Ken Burns's knowledge of jazz from the various interviews he gave. It's out there if you want to check it out .(Hint: Very little).
Thank you. I stand (half) corrected.
I agree with parts of what you've both posted. In particular, I totally get what Flaneur is saying there (although I appreciate the visual medium as much as any other).
What do you find so problematic about that statement that you have to do a facepalm? I am genuinely puzzled.
Because it's bullshit, and even worse than that, because he pretends to be an elitist snob by saying that movies and TV shows are above him; and yet I'm sure he'll say he's read plenty of books and listened to music despite each of those mediums are other people's ideas being pushing into your "cognitive channels."
I wonder if you're overreacting. Perhaps because my reaction was different.
I saw no elitist snobbishness there. I also happened to think that books are a little more abstract than movies/TV, and music is probably the most abstract art form of all (but that's a much longer discussion that I am willing to engage in separately, so that I don't bore people to tears).
The Holocaust was part of World War II. World War II caused the deaths of 60 million people. They made movies about World War II during World War II. Film adaptations of the 911 terrorist attack on the US were made while most survivors were still alive and the event was still fresh in the minds of nearly everyone.
In my first post in this thread, I said that I worshipped Steve Jobs like a god. However, I fully understand that he was not a god. A film--even an unflattering film--about Steve Jobs is not blasphemy.
You don't see it with his comments against works of fiction, his last movie watched was Ghandi, an implication that TV has rotted my brain, that TV and movies make it impossible to acquire knowledge through thinking, then a jump to buzzwords like Weatern civ, patricary, fascism, nuclear-arms race, and a weird comment about "5,000 BCE" which he then concludes all needs to be dealt with before entertainment despite his participation on this forum is entertainment.
It all screams BS, and also confusing that he doesn't see the hypocrisy of his own words and irony of how everything developed under Steve was all designed to make the best possible experience (i.e. we were more entertained by his works than by others). Is he going to say he never saw the long running "I'm A Mac" campaign because he's rather "cognitively channel" Apple's advertising campaign instead of seeing how they work?
If he actually wanted to step out of his personal bubble he'd see that science and technology build upon each other so regulating his world view to only what he can think of—which I've already shown is BS by simply being on this forum—he'd see that it's all built upon each other. Innovators get inspired by the others. Jobs was inspired by HP, Sony, and countless other things that resulted in his achievements, and to take that away from the man is deplorable.
How quickly we forget that Jobs had a yacht built. I'm sure that was purely for utilitarian purposes in case refugees needed a trip from one coast to another¡
I'm aware they were consulted.
However, what I said still stands.
The ENTIRETY of the dialogue between Jobs' character and this of Sculley and Woz was fabricated. The ENTIRETY.
Both Woz and Sculley confirm this.
Therefore the praise of this movie for its "honesty" is s bit much.
That is all. Thank you.
I believe the last biopic I saw was Gandhi. The last movie I've seen is Gibney's The Man in the Machine. Sorry, like I said, you're dealing with an outlier here, and like you say, not one who should be listened to about film at all.This whole thing started when wigby suggested that Tim Cook objected to "painful truths" in the movie, and I responded that more likely he objected to the dramatic distortions of his friend's life.
That's the only thing I should be sticking with here. Steve Jobs is not a good subject fo be milked for the usual Hollywood emo drama. Expect accusations of exploitation if you use him uhat way.
Of course movies are a worthy art form in themselves. I have a headful of images from Fellini and Kubrick, for example, enough to know that my particular psychology is prone to being hijacked by image-based media. Everybody's different. Some people don't want to be bothered with ideas. Some want to stay clear of images. Whole cultures are based on these preferences or tolerances. Nothing to get worked up about.
If flaneur doesn't like visual influences then he or she is missing out on Shakespeare's plays ( one out right now has the lead on Steve jobs playing MacBeth) and plenty of high quality movies. Nor is there a compulsion to watch Hollywood at all, or to watch blockbusters or anything really. There's good television too.
What you do need to avoid is the 24 hour news cycle.
So what. The entirety of Shakespeare's historical drama about Caesar ( I say for the 3rd time) is made up and in a different language than Caesar spoke. This isn't a documentary. As long as the speech gives the gist of what happened then that's what historical fiction does.
Eh, sorry, what? How the **** can a movie about a real person "honest", while making no attempts to be "accurate"?
Come on, AI.
Its quite difficult to be accurate when this means reproducing private conversations that took place 30-35 years ago (mainly back-stage dialogues). However, you may try to reproduce the emotions that a particular conversation transmitted and the impact it had on future events in order to create an honest depiction of real persons and their relationships. I do agree however that Job's life had so many dramatic twists that its absolutely unjustified the need to invent additional ones which clearly contradict the actual facts as revealed by the real persons involved.
I believe the last biopic I saw was Gandhi. The last movie I've seen is Gibney's The Man in the Machine. Sorry, like I said, you're dealing with an outlier here, and like you say, not one who should be listened to about film at all.This whole thing started when wigby suggested that Tim Cook objected to "painful truths" in the movie, and I responded that more likely he objected to the dramatic distortions of his friend's life.
That's the only thing I should be sticking with here. Steve Jobs is not a good subject fo be milked for the usual Hollywood emo drama. Expect accusations of exploitation if you use him uhat way.
Of course movies are a worthy art form in themselves. I have a headful of images from Fellini and Kubrick, for example, enough to know that my particular psychology is prone to being hijacked by image-based media. Everybody's different. Some people don't want to be bothered with ideas. Some want to stay clear of images. Whole cultures are based on these preferences or tolerances. Nothing to get worked up about.
I'm fairly sure that what you understand about Fellini and Kubrick is pretty much nil.
Here's a little question for you. Why did HAL go insane?