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

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 124
    aaronjaaronj Posts: 1,595member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BadMonk View Post





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



    Actually, I didn't think much of "12 Years" overall, though it certainly had its moments.  A MUCH better McQueen/Fassbender film is "Shame."  I think by a long, LONG shot.

  • Reply 42 of 124
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    cali wrote: »
    He said he wasn't doing it for financial gain anyway remember?

    I believed him when he said that. I think he was doing it for the accolades and awards that often accompany Apple bashing. His public statements give the impression
    that having his ego stroked is the most important thing to him. That's one reason why he got so emotional about Cook implying he was an opportunist.
  • Reply 43 of 124
    Independent of the movie maybe this is also an indication that the broad public is not so much interested in a film about Steve jobs.
  • Reply 44 of 124
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post





    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.

     

    hahahaha.  No.  Movie theatres owners would cream their pants right now if they got a 50/50 split for tickets of a new movie.  At least for any movie people actually want to see.

     

    Now, for this specific movie, it's possible they agreed to give the theatres a small percentage to show the film, but it is NOT the usual case.

  • Reply 45 of 124

    I will because he can't

    CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 85

  • Reply 46 of 124

    I have no interest in seeing a fabricated film about Steve Jobs written by a guy who arrogantly states that his movie about a real person was not intended to be a fact-based film.

  • Reply 47 of 124
    His preformances in "12 Years A Slave" and the X-Men movies indicate otherwise.
    Those movies had strong ensemble casts, of which he played a part. He was not the leading star. I didn't say he couldn't act; I said he doesn't put asses in theater seats. He can't be relied upon to carry a big budget film.
  • Reply 48 of 124
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Years ago when I first heard that Sorkin was doing the script, I made my views known on this site more than once, and I guess that the movie turned out to be pretty much how I predicted.:smokey:

     

    This is not some movie about a historical person who lived hundreds of years ago. This is about a person who passed away not that many years ago, and it's just dumb to make shit up, when the truth is far better and more interesting. Why even bother to call this movie Steve Jobs? Why not use a fictional character title for a fictional film?

     

    Many people who did know Steve Jobs well have come out and criticized this film. Besides Woz, who got paid hundreds of thousands to consult on the film, who knew Jobs well that likes this movie? The list of people who knew him well and who bash the film is far more numerous than the Woz's of the world I think.

  • Reply 49 of 124
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post



    Michael Fassbender will never be an A-list star who can carry a movie. Nobody is going to the theater to see him. The studio should've acquiesced to whatever the hell David Fincher wanted and kept him paired with Christian Bale by any means necessary.

    Christian Bale has made his fair share of flops, and shown far worse judgement when it comes to picking his roles.  Terminator: Salvation?

  • Reply 50 of 124
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,324moderator
    "Steve Jobs," the dramatic, fictionalized depiction of Apple's cofounder written by Aaron Sorkin and starring Michael Fassbender, has flopped on its national release, bringing in just $7.3 million for a film that cost $30 million to make.

    An earlier movie titled "Jobs," staring Ashton Kutcher, similarly flopped when it brought in $6.7 million on its opening weekend, nearly as much despite poor reviews.

    I wouldn't say that Kutcher's movie flopped, it made $35m on a $12m budget:

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jobs.htm

    Considering the only other movie before it was the Pirates of Silicon Valley, which was a pretty low-budget TV drama, it's currently the most commercially successful Steve Jobs movie of all time.

    This new one, the Biography of Fake Steve Jobs has a steeper hill to climb:

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=jobs2015.htm

    It could break even but it will be a blot on the records of everyone involved.
    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.

    It does get tiring hearing the same story being told over and over. To twist a story that everyone is deeply familiar with by now into a fictional spin-off with characters that bear hardly any resemblance to their real-world counterparts was a huge mistake.

    The Facebook movie The Social Network written by Sorkin was a massive worldwide success - $225m revenue on a $40m budget:

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=socialnetwork.htm

    They took some liberties with that too:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-11437873

    but nobody knew the story of Facebook and there was controversy that wasn't publicized. They must have assumed they could pull off the same thing again.
  • Reply 51 of 124
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    How do you do a movie about Steve Jobs and completely ignore the last 15 years of his life? This movie focuses on Steve's daughter Lisa but fails to mention that Steve was happily married and had other children. Fails to mention that Lisa actually lived with Steve and his family for several years and that Steve paid for her college education. The problem with this movie is it's mostly fiction but some fact. If it was complete fiction with made-up names nobody would be trying to reconcile it with what actually happened.
  • Reply 52 of 124
    davdav Posts: 115member

    I'm waiting until Ken Burns decides to make a documentary about Steve Jobs.

  • Reply 53 of 124

    Good. I hope the Boyle one flops too. 

  • Reply 54 of 124
    msanttimsantti Posts: 1,377member
    I saw it.

    It was okay.

    Acting was pretty well done and the sets were pretty good.

    But I went in know ing it was not going to be accurate.

    I tried not to get worked up over things like many people do now a days.

    Its just bad for your health.
  • Reply 55 of 124
    damonfdamonf Posts: 229member

    If anything, hopefully the box office record for this movie dissuades others from producing any more Steve Jobs movies for awhile.

  • Reply 56 of 124
    Let the dead bury the dead.
  • Reply 57 of 124

    :(Let the dead bury the dead.

  • Reply 58 of 124
    prolineproline Posts: 222member

    The problem is, nobody would have wanted to watch this if it wasn't for the interest surrounding Steve Jobs. It just isn't good enough to stand without the support of his fame. Not that it stands well with it either.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

    Why even bother to call this movie Steve Jobs? Why not use a fictional character title for a fictional film?


     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



     If it was complete fiction with made-up names nobody would be trying to reconcile it with what actually happened.

  • Reply 59 of 124

    No one can take place of SIR Steve Jobs ..

  • Reply 60 of 124
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 805member

    It flops because the subject matter (a dead tech guy) is just boring for almost everyone alive.

Sign In or Register to comment.