Aaron Sorkin's 'Steve Jobs' flops at the box office

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 124
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,742member

    .

  • Reply 22 of 124
    macvicta wrote: »
    Michael Fassbender will never be an A-list star who can carry a movie. Nobody is going to the theater to see him.
    His preformances in "12 Years A Slave" and the X-Men movies indicate otherwise.
  • Reply 23 of 124

    It's too soon to make a movie about Steve Jobs...

  • Reply 24 of 124
    macvicta wrote: »
    Michael Fassbender will never be an A-list star who can carry a movie. Nobody is going to the theater to see him.
    His preformances in "12 Years A Slave" and the X-Men movies indicate otherwise.

    Couldn't agree more. Looks like Fassbender's talent may have been utterly wasted on this film. (Bale's, IMHO, would not have been; but he was probably smarter to think to say 'no' after seeing the script).
  • Reply 25 of 124
    bobschlobbobschlob Posts: 1,074member
    I'm already starting to read comments, that this is just further proof that Apple is finished.
    (yes, you heard me right)
  • Reply 26 of 124
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    The real reason is nobody wants to go to a Steve Jobs movie?
    It sounds harsh but his death was given lots of attention, right now everybody is fed up with it. But it's still in people's mind being recent history.

    It's both too late and too soon for success.
  • Reply 27 of 124

    I'm curious to know if any of you have read "A Regular Guy" and if so, how you think it compares to this film?  I read it, and while I liked the film, I thought the novel was even harder hitting.  Curious as to other people's opinions.

  • Reply 28 of 124
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    What kind of math is this?

    "The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that 'Steve Jobs' needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even."

    No. If it were to bring in $120 million, the movie would make 100% profit, using the numbers from the first statement.

    Or is this part of Hollywood's "accounting" that if the numbers work out like this, they tell their investors the movie broke even and there is no profit for them.

    The box office take is split with the movie theaters. Assuming a 50/50 split, then yes, it would need to take in $120 million in theater receipts in order to provide the movie house with its $60 million break-even costs.
  • Reply 29 of 124
    Originally Posted by wvdirk View Post

    It's too soon to make a movie about Steve Jobs...



    Well, Steve himself invited Noah Wyle on stage after Pirates of Silicon Valley. If Steve had been alive for this one, I imagine he would have invited Michael Fassbender on stage... at a Microsoft keynote.

  • Reply 30 of 124
    It deserves to fail.. Mean spirited movies just aren't attractive.
  • Reply 31 of 124
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,198member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foljs View Post

     

    So, like, the officially sanctioned biography of Steve Jobs, created in cooperatio with Jobs himself...


    Except Steve Jobs the movie doesn't follow the book closely at all, even if you discount the altered timeline. Isaacson's book is well-researched, well-written and authorized, but the movie includes Sorkin's personal take on events, which are blatantly wrong and seem fully intended not to create discussion and controversy but rather to disparage Jobs--and in turn disparage Apple. Personally, I believe Sorkin couldn't wrap his head around it all--especially the technology--and so he wrote a screenplay to please himself and focused primarily on Jobs' relationships with Chrisann and Lisa. (On that subject, has anyone ever pursued the train of thought that Jobs didn't like Chrisann very much, that he was fearful of what their offspring might be like, and that he thought early on that Chrisann should have aborted the child because he was not in a position at least emotionally to help raise the child? How much say did Jobs have?)

     

    [This weekend, I heard a professional movie reviewer (name unknown) who said after watching the film, he was glad he'd never bought an Apple computer. Congratulations, Aaron.]

     

    Examples of major errors in Sorkin's revisionist history, which he would prefer we call "artistic license":

    Apple/Jobs did not steal Xerox PARC's GUI. Apple bought the technology legally and for a low price, because Xerox upper management didn't know what to do with it. Jobs instantly recognized its value, though, and snapped it up immediately. Bill Gates visited Xerox PARC 2 weeks later--guess why!--but the sale was already complete. The Xerox GUI lacked folders and pull-down menus, which everyone takes for granted since 1984; and on the hardware front, the mouse was impractical and everything required a $100K computer to function. Apple did far more than just acquire the nascent technology, it fleshed out the GUI and made it run on hardware that was practical to manufacture and purchase.

     

    No way did Jobs or anyone else anticipate his returning to Apple when he founded NeXT. (Somebody ask Sorkin to produce the Guy Kawasaki article he suggests in the movie existed ca. 1988 that says so!) Nor does it seem at all plausible that Jobs would start NeXT (and nearly go bankrupt in the process!) with the expectation that the company would fail.

     

    Steve Jobs (the man) indeed believed he was to be honored as Time's Man of the Year and consequently gave Time reporters unprecedented access to the company, which is said to have backfired when Kottke talked about the strained relationship between Steve, Chrisann and Lisa. Sorkin inserts his own opinion that Jobs should have recognized that Time never had such an intention, because the Man of the Year cover image was that of a sculpture (a man sitting at a computer), and production of a sculpture takes time. First, even if Sorkin were right (which he's not), this has no bearing on Time misleading Jobs; Second, the sculpture depicted on the magazine cover is of such poor quality that it could easily have been produced in days, if not hours; Third, if indeed it was Kottke's statements that sunk Jobs' opportunity to appear on the cover, his statements might have been acquired months in advance of the publication deadline, giving Time's management plenty of time to adjust their plans.

     

    Contrary to Sorkin's script, NeXT absolutely did have an OS at the product launch. Avie Tevanian was an OS "guru" and one of the first employees at NeXT. The NeXTStep OS was based on the Mach OS, which Tevanian invented at Carnegie Mellon. The API for developers was perhaps not fully fleshed out at launch time, but the Cube definitely had an OS. Sorkin seems unable to comprehend such matters, though! And where did Sorkin get the idea that Tevanian would be assigned the task of finding a satisfactory shark image for the iMac launch? Furthermore, as for Jobs supposedly giving perfunctory answers to inquiries about when the Cube would be available to purchase, every biography of the man indicates that he abhorred delays.

     

    Steve Wozniak effectively retired from Apple in 1981--3 years before the movie even begins--after suffering a tragic, traumatic head injury in a private plane crash that severely diminished his mental capacity.

     

    Joanna Hoffmann followed Jobs from Apple to NeXT but left NeXT long before it was acquired by Apple.

  • Reply 32 of 124
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,295member
    I saw the movie this weekend as a member of the cult. I like all the principal actors but I have to blame the script by Aaron Sorkin. It is a verbose mess that barely gels by act III. It's as if Aaron Sorkin imagined a morality play about bad parenting and than shoe-horned Job's life into it.

    Don't see this contrived mess.
  • Reply 33 of 124
    hentaiboy wrote: »
    Perhaps the author should watch Fassbender in '12 Years a Slave' where he won four acting awards and was nominated for no less than 26 others.

    Looking at your username, you don't really have much credibility where film is considered.

    But even just looking at your mention of the guy getting nominated however many times... The author is still correct. He DID PLAY the android from Prometheus. Alrighty then...
  • Reply 34 of 124
    Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

    Looking at your username, you don't really have much credibility where film is considered.

    image

     

    But even just looking at your mention of the guy getting nominated however many times... 


     

    Nominations and awards are appeals to authority at this point. Particularly with 12 Years A Slave, where multiple members of the voting committee HAD NOT EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE.

  • Reply 35 of 124

    It's failing because we've had enough Steve Jobs movies already. Isn't this the third? I mean come on, the man was fascinating, but how many biography movies do we really need? I think it's just Steve Jobs fatigue.

  • Reply 36 of 124
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BadMonk View Post



    I saw the movie this weekend as a member of the cult. I like all the principal actors but I have to blame the script by Aaron Sorkin. It is a verbose mess that barely gells by act III. It's as if Aaron Sorkin imagined a morality play about bad parenting and than shoe-horned Job's life into it.



    Don't see it.



    Oh, I will see it.  Whether or not in the theater, that's a different question, as I rarely get to the theater much anymore.  But frankly, I'm far more interested in pretty much anything by Sorkin and Fassbender than I am in your opinion.

  • Reply 37 of 124

    If the filmmakers had approached this movie in a Citizen Kane like manner with a fictional character inspired by Jobs (ala Charles Foster Kane vs William Randolph Hearst), you can take whatever artistic license you want to make it compelling and dramatic.   Once they decided to make it a biopic about Steve Jobs, they were constrained by reality even as they produced a fictional farce. 

  • Reply 38 of 124
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by markbyrn View Post

     

    If the filmmakers had approached this movie in a Citizen Kane like manner with a fictional character inspired by Jobs (ala Charles Foster Kane vs William Randolph Hearst), you can take whatever artistic license you want to make it compelling and dramatic.   Once they decided to make it a biopic about Steve Jobs, they were constrained by reality even as they produced a fictional farce. 




    You're also assuming that the average audience goer gives a crap about that.  Which he or she doesn't.  Heck, the average audience goer doesn't have even close to the information necessary to make a judgement either way.

  • Reply 39 of 124
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,295member
    aaronj wrote: »

    Oh, I will see it.  Whether or not in the theater, that's a different question, as I rarely get to the theater much anymore.  But frankly, I'm far more interested in pretty much anything by Sorkin and Fassbender than I am in your opinion.

    I am a fan of Fassbender. Twelve years a slave is a masterpiece. This movie is not. Aaron Sorkin is full of it.

    If you want to see a recent well done bio-pic, see Love & Mercy about Brian Wilson instead.
  • Reply 40 of 124
    tcaseytcasey Posts: 199member

    going to see this movie would be like dissing steve jobs..no thanks.

Sign In or Register to comment.