Laurene Powell Jobs 'repeatedly' tried to halt Universal's Steve Jobs film, report says

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2015
Laurene Powell Jobs -- the widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs -- reportedly tried several times to halt the development of the Universal biopic about her former husband.




In her efforts, Powell Jobs lobbied both Universal and the film's original studio, Sony Pictures Entertainment, according to The Wall Street Journal. She is even said to have refused involvement in the movie's development, for instance opting not to go over anything in Aaron Sorkin's script with producer Scott Rudin.

Powell Jobs would only say that she disliked the Walter Isaacson biography the movie is based on, and that any film based on that book couldn't be accurate, Rudin explained to the Journal. Isaacson grounded his writing in numerous interviews, including many with Steve Jobs himself.

Steve Jobs will publicly premiere this Friday, and notably veers away from Isaacson's work and historical accuracy. Fellow Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, however, commented to the Journal that the movie "did a great job" in its main goal, which was conveying Steve Jobs' personality.

A spokesman for Powell Jobs said that Universal offered her a sneak preview of the film as long as she didn't discuss it prior to its debut, but the screening was declined.

She and her allies have claimed that Steve Jobs and other recent depictions, like the Alex Gibney documentary Steve Jobs: Man in the Machine, downplay his achievements while highlighting his dark side, suggesting that he was cruel and inhumane. One centerpiece of both films for example is his first child, Lisa Brennan-Jobs, who he initially disowned and refused to support until his paternity was confirmed with DNA testing. The two eventually reconciled and became close.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37

    Poor woman. I feel sorry for her. Must be impossible to move on.

  • Reply 2 of 37
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 1,854member
    Understandable. If Jobs treated those close to him better than he treated those who were his ... workers..., or if his behavior had generally and genuinely improved beyond the behavior he's infamous for, the people who cared about him wouldn't want the bad versions of him to be continuously retread by the media, especially after losing him to death.
  • Reply 3 of 37
    Well, for good or ill, it's in the hands (and purses) of the audience now.
  • Reply 4 of 37
    Laurene Powell Jobs should take solace in the fact that a lot of reasonable people know very well that Steve was a pretty complicated guy, and we still love him anyway.

    I'm going to see the movie, and will not be looking at it either through the lens of how accurate it is (on a character level, I believe it'll hit the right marks), or whether or not it enhances or dings Jobs' legacy. By most accounts it appears to be a well written, directed, and acted film and should be a very entertaining character study of one of the most transformative industry titans of the past century.
  • Reply 5 of 37
    Interesting how both movies just release do a 'drama' of the one side of him denying the child was his, but never show how they reconciled and became close.

    Just one example of how these movies don't show the true arch of Steve and his life as he grew as a "person". So far we've seen only movies show him as an idol or villain(as these last 2 movies like to portray him)..

    /shrug.. Oh well, they will make money off his corpse...
  • Reply 6 of 37
    I enjoyed the Isaacson book. Steve was a complicated human being, just like the rest of us. No one will ever be able to truly capture him, and how he was to those who knew him the closest I would think.
  • Reply 7 of 37
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    Steve liked being a public figure. You can't put the genie back in the bottle and rewrite history. Woz says it's an accurate depiction whereas Laurene balks. The ultimate arbiter is the film's audience.
  • Reply 8 of 37
    [B]All characters appearing in this film are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.[/B]

    Problem: [B]solved[/B]
  • Reply 9 of 37
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mj web wrote: »
    Steve liked being a public figure. You can't put the genie back in the bottle and rewrite history. Woz says it's an accurate depiction whereas Laurene balks. The ultimate arbiter is the film's audience.

    I'm sick of people like Woz being the arbiter of these things. The fact is there are people who worked more closely with Steve and for a longer period of than Woz did. Yet people look to Woz to tell us whether something is an accurate depiction or not. And when people Tim Cook or Eddy Cue offer up a different opinion it's just discounted as being biased. As if those saying critical things about Steve can't be biased or don't have an ax to grind.
  • Reply 10 of 37
    All characters appearing in this film are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

    Problem: solved

    Or "loosely based on actual persons and events".
  • Reply 11 of 37
    I like reading books about Steve, and watching films about him, even if I know full well that it may not be giving an accurate portrayal. It gives something, and I always learn something. I just know to take everything with a grain of salt.

    I can understand why people who were closest to Steve-his wife, his co-workers, his friends-might feel like the movies are poorly representing him. They knew him! Most of us did not. It doesn't feel as insulting to me even if I suspect they are mischaracterizing him in some way.
  • Reply 12 of 37

    I'm glad having a lot of money was not enough for her to shut this down. Her failure means everyone else can form their own opinion, hopefully AFTER actually seeing the movie.

  • Reply 13 of 37
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,471member
    jollypaul wrote: »
    I'm glad having a lot of money was not enough for her to shut this down. Her failure means everyone else can form their own opinion, hopefully AFTER actually seeing the movie.

    Money wouldn't have much to do with it, unless you're suggesting she'd offer a bribe. Not her style, I think.

    Being Steve's wife and the mother of his kids, on the other hand, might be relevant.
  • Reply 14 of 37
    jollypaul wrote: »
    I'm glad having a lot of money was not enough for her to shut this down. Her failure means everyone else can form their own opinion, hopefully AFTER actually seeing the movie.

    Isn't that kind of flawgic free license to libel and slander?
  • Reply 15 of 37
    Pretty sure Steve would be pretty psyched that anyone still cares about his story.
  • Reply 16 of 37
    vfx2k4 wrote: »
    Pretty sure Steve would be pretty psyched that anyone still cares about his story.

    I find that an unusually odd and offensive comment.
  • Reply 17 of 37
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Woz was paid $200k to 'consult' on the movie.  Something AppleInsider fails to mention everytime they quote Woz saying good stuff about the movie.


    And... Woz had to deal with Jobs when Jobs was 'Version 0.9.' (I see Steve didn't hit 1.0 until his NeXT years, and Steve 2.0 wasn't released until at least 2000).   So, any time there is a need to 'color in'  the personality, Woz didn't have the insight of day to day SJ after 1987.   I'd hate to have the past 15 years of my life aligned with the views of someone who hadn't worked closely with me in 25 years, and is being paid to help with developing a 'dramatic tension' in a storyline.

     

    And I didn't do to anyone what Jobs did to Woz.   

  • Reply 18 of 37
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,471member
    Poor woman. I feel sorry for her. Must be impossible to move on.

    Ms. Powell-Jobs seems to be getting out as well as getting the word out.

    She's in this video embedded in Philip Elmer-DeWitt's piece today, starting at 2:59, congratulating Tim Cook for his human rights award:

    http://fortune.com/2015/10/04/apple-cook-jobs-gay/
  • Reply 19 of 37
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Woz was paid $200k to 'consult' on the movie.  Something AppleInsider fails to mention everytime they quote Woz saying good stuff about the movie.


     

    sog35, I'm sure you don't intend to imply that everyone who's paid for consultation or testimony or fact-checking is dishonest....

  • Reply 20 of 37
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 2,415member

    Coverups can be worse than the "crimes". So much moolah at stake, particularly on Apple's side.

     

    Why is Tim Cook allowed to mouth off (and win awards) but Josh Begley (author of Metadata+) isn't? Concession to the CIA and NSA?

Sign In or Register to comment.