Isn't it possible that a similar conversation took place in reaction to the Franklin 100?
Taking you seriously, no, not in 1977. Anyway, the issue is Sorkin's tin ear when it comes to the way people speak in their own context. "Closed system" and "end-to-end control" did not apply to personal computers at the time. Can you say why not?
Going to see this week. This movie and the book on which its based are but two bricks in the wall of SJ's legend. Many years from now the entire mosaic will inform how history judges the man.
Taking you seriously, no, not in 1977. Anyway, the issue is Sorkin's tin ear when it comes to the way people speak in their own context. "Closed system" and "end-to-end control" did not apply to personal computers at the time. Can you say why not?
I'm just saying that Sorkin could have been trying to cover the Franklin problem. Timing and wording aside.
There are a number of reasons these terms didn't apply, and the first being that computers on the surface of the planet are too close to other matter to maintain a closed system :P
I feel that if a film is named after an actual person, then it should aim to be accurate. In contrast, I'm fine with fictionalized stories with an equally fictional title being only loosely based on a real person -- such as Citizen Kane being loosely based on William Randolph Hearst.
I'm just saying that Sorkin could have been trying to cover the Franklin problem. Timing and wording aside.
There are a number of reasons these terms didn't apply, and the first being that computers on the surface of the planet are too close to other matter to maintain a closed system :P
Good one. Mine was that they were working on the first ever manufactured personal computer and here's Sorkin tripping over his shoelaces to get in a piece of ideology (for the haters) that would apply only years later. Shameless pandering.
He was the archetypal bad guy. Dressed in black, he built his evil walled garden to stop free exchange of music and movie files and made things that some people couldn't afford.
And whilst he was building his money making empire, he sometimes acted 'bossy' and rude to people.
Hope this helps.
And he was so mean to his daughter! Alex Gibney decided he found his story. Steve was a monster.
So the movie is one huge NEGATIVE PROPAGANDA film to take a dump on Steve Jobs while he can't defend himself.
Who thinks this film would come out while Jobs was alive? IMO, this is an act of cowardice. They could have made this film while he was alive but decided not to since Jobs would rip them a new one.
No self respecting Apple fan or Steve Jobs fan should support this film. I'm all for showing the good and bad of a person. But this film only shows the so called bad side of Jobs. Shameful that hollywood steps on dead people's grave to make a buck. Disgusting.
That's the documentary Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine you're thinking of. This is the Danny Boyle movie.
Good one. Mine was that they were working on the first ever manufactured personal computer and here's Sorkin tripping over his shoelaces to get in a piece of ideology (for the haters) that would apply only years later. Shameless pandering.
True, but there's no getting around movies taking artistic license with history. They need to sell tickets, and real life is pretty boring on the big screen when you're trying to dull the sting of $8 popcorn.
a brick based on lies? Even Sorkin admits he made up most of the dialog. Is it any wonder that almost every single person who knew Jobs says the movie is inaccurate? The only guy who said it was okay was Woz, who got paid $200k from the movie budget
Nobody has seen the movie except a few reviewers and a few thousand people in NY.
Comments
Taking you seriously, no, not in 1977. Anyway, the issue is Sorkin's tin ear when it comes to the way people speak in their own context. "Closed system" and "end-to-end control" did not apply to personal computers at the time. Can you say why not?
Taking you seriously, no, not in 1977. Anyway, the issue is Sorkin's tin ear when it comes to the way people speak in their own context. "Closed system" and "end-to-end control" did not apply to personal computers at the time. Can you say why not?
I'm just saying that Sorkin could have been trying to cover the Franklin problem. Timing and wording aside.
There are a number of reasons these terms didn't apply, and the first being that computers on the surface of the planet are too close to other matter to maintain a closed system :P
I don't think so, Obama was elected twice.
Given the horrific state of the country and the world in general, this is painfully obvious.
Given the horrific state of the country and the world in general, this is painfully obvious.
You going for the ultimate "Thanks, Obama" self-parody?
Pretty soon there's going to be more Steve Jobs movies then Jesus Christ movies.
I'm waiting for the Fake Steve Jobs movie. For the rest of us, there's Pirates Of Silicon Valley....
I am a big Apple fan and buyer but Jobs was not exactly an angel.
You going for the ultimate "Thanks, Obama" self-parody?
Pretty much.
I feel that if a film is named after an actual person, then it should aim to be accurate. In contrast, I'm fine with fictionalized stories with an equally fictional title being only loosely based on a real person -- such as Citizen Kane being loosely based on William Randolph Hearst.
Good one. Mine was that they were working on the first ever manufactured personal computer and here's Sorkin tripping over his shoelaces to get in a piece of ideology (for the haters) that would apply only years later. Shameless pandering.
Having read magazine articles and books about Steve Jobs ever since 1984, I'm reserving judgment until watching the movie next weekend.
And he was so mean to his daughter! Alex Gibney decided he found his story. Steve was a monster.
That's the documentary Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine you're thinking of. This is the Danny Boyle movie.
No, no that doesn't work here.
This is as fake as a Steve Jobs movie gets:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2782834/
Good one. Mine was that they were working on the first ever manufactured personal computer and here's Sorkin tripping over his shoelaces to get in a piece of ideology (for the haters) that would apply only years later. Shameless pandering.
True, but there's no getting around movies taking artistic license with history. They need to sell tickets, and real life is pretty boring on the big screen when you're trying to dull the sting of $8 popcorn.
Having read magazine articles and books about Steve Jobs ever since 1984, I'm reserving judgment until watching the movie next weekend.
Why would you rely on a highly fictionalized account to make a judgement?
I am a big Apple fan and buyer but Jobs was not exactly an angel.
He wasn't the devil either. What's your point again?
Nobody has seen the movie except a few reviewers and a few thousand people in NY.
This means nothing.
It ran in only 4 theaters. They are just trying to manufacter fake hype.
Lets face the facts. This is probably a very good and entertaining movie. But you will learn NOTHING about the real Steve Jobs watching it.
I saw this movie yesterday, it's is brilliantly acted, written and directed. The rave reviews are spot on.