And you, along with nearly everybody else here, are missing the original point that started this discussion back at post #22. That is, four years is obscenely too soon to do a mini biopic "portrait" of Steve Jobs. He didn't live, work and die to end up as entertainment and a big-money draw for Universal Pictures or whoever. Oscar material even.
Tim Cook is rightly calling it opportunistc, the other Apple people around Jobs aren't even going to be able to watch this soap opera treatment, certainly not his wife, who wouldn't even be able to read the script without gagging or blowing a fuse. Those who will be entertained aren't acknowledging the flawed premise of the movie—Steve's life as "material," to hell with his family and friends—or the collateral damage that a high-wattage movie can do: twisting the general understanding of Steve's intellect and the products of his character, sealing the subject in polyurethane for a generation.
I hope some understanding gets through, and i'll be watching for it, but it's still beside the point for his survivors, who just aren't going to like seeing him exploited like this.
As far as your Shakespeare argument goes, notice that the histories and the legendary-figure plays (Hamlet, Lear, Macbeth, Othello) are about themes much larger than the characters, and enough time has passed where Prince Hal or Henry IV can serve as allegories for the foundation of Elizabeth's reign, or Hamlet can serve as a lesson in corrupt court politics. I'll be surprised if we learn anything trustworthy from "Steve Jobs" the movie.
It is based on a book Jobs wanted written before he died. From his enthusiasm about Issacson's book it is easy to surmise he would have been enthusiastic about this film. Four years is not obscenely short in any way. Particularly for someone who clearly wanted the unwashed story of his life told publicly. If he had survived does anyone doubt he would have been the first one to sit down with Sorkin to work on the script.
I trust the NASA findings because they were in the room. you've never been in the room with Jobs during any of these events, nor have you met him, talked with him, etc. nor do you know his friends. you're a guy who reads shit on websites, just like me. we aren't experts on the truth of these people. we're just fanboys. surely you realize that.
I trust Cook on these matters because he has been the man in hand room, and did know him well. but as noted even Cook wasn't there in the early chapters, and those that were weren't in the later chapters.
But Isaacson and Sorkin both talked to people who were in the room. Even people , like Woz, that say the dialogue is not precise still think it is an accurate portrayal. Much of what people think of as negative are stories that came from Jobs himself. Isaacson and Sorkin have considerably more second hand knowledge about those events than NASA has knowledge of what actually happened on Pluto. Admittedly, this whole comparison is silly.
It is based on a book Jobs wanted written before he died. From his enthusiasm about Issacson's book it is easy to surmise he would have been enthusiastic about this film. Four years is not obscenely short in any way. Particularly for someone who clearly wanted the unwashed story of his life told publicly. If he had survived does anyone doubt he would have been the first one to sit down with Sorkin to work on the script.
I just listened to an interview with the director, Danny Boyle, who said this movie is really about Aaron Sorkin and his relationship with his own daughter, and for him (Boyle) it's about his own relationship with his own daughters.
You can find the interview by searching for the podcast called "The Frame".
Comments
It is based on a book Jobs wanted written before he died. From his enthusiasm about Issacson's book it is easy to surmise he would have been enthusiastic about this film. Four years is not obscenely short in any way. Particularly for someone who clearly wanted the unwashed story of his life told publicly. If he had survived does anyone doubt he would have been the first one to sit down with Sorkin to work on the script.
But Isaacson and Sorkin both talked to people who were in the room. Even people , like Woz, that say the dialogue is not precise still think it is an accurate portrayal. Much of what people think of as negative are stories that came from Jobs himself. Isaacson and Sorkin have considerably more second hand knowledge about those events than NASA has knowledge of what actually happened on Pluto. Admittedly, this whole comparison is silly.
I just listened to an interview with the director, Danny Boyle, who said this movie is really about Aaron Sorkin and his relationship with his own daughter, and for him (Boyle) it's about his own relationship with his own daughters.
You can find the interview by searching for the podcast called "The Frame".