"We're handing out awards to help our sniveling buddy, Aaron Sorkin. He lost his shirt on this one."
Total b.s. These aren't industry awards - these are the foreign critics awards and most are independent writers, so you can't even make the case that they did it because their publication wants advertising from the studios.
And I guarantee you that Aaron Sorkin lost nothing. He got paid well and up-front. Only idiots take net points.
You may have hated the idea of the movie (I would say "hated the movie", but I doubt you saw it), but let's not make up crap just because that's the case (even if Sorkin did).
I'm pretty sure he's referring to Sorkin's comments that he took a pay cut to make this movie and its implication that we should admire him for it.
I saw it and was so bored watching it I wanted to fast-forward through several parts because 1) it was focused on a couple of Steve's (problem) relationships using product launches as the vehicle delivery (yawn!), 2) it was so repetitive you only needed to watch the first launch to know what the rest of the movie was going to be, and 3) Michael Fassbender was utterly terrible as Steve Jobs.
I watched and actually enjoyed the other Jobs "biopic" with Ashton Kutcher enough to watch that one twice, but this version, well, what I can say positive about this one is that I made it all the way through which is more than I can say for Pirates of Silicon Valley (which I would rate about as highly, or lowly as the case may be).
Strange, because I'm an Aaron Sorkin fan, huge fan of The West Wing and The Newsroom and I expected to be one of those people who loved this movie even after it was already a flop at the box office - but, in this case, the flopping at the box office is well deserved, this movie is a complete waste of time.
Please see my comment above to see why the product launches were so fundamental to Apple's success and why Steve drove everyone crazy and to brilliant and industry changing products. The launches where "frames" used to address Jobs at different times in his career and Apple's history. The dialogue was astounding to listen to, and once you understand this is an abstraction of conversations and events all jammed into the three separate product launches the bigger picture become clear. No actor can be exactly like another human being so all actors create portrayals, Fassbinder's creation was his portrayal and it worked for me.
I'm glad it worked for you.
BTW, it wasn't difficult to figure out what they were doing with the dialogue and the product launches. Neither that nor an understanding of actual events behind the story was a means to appreciation with this film, sadly. I was hugely disappointed, and even more surprised as I expected to love it.
I loved this movie and I suspect most (if not all) of the negative comments here come from people that did not see it. How do I know? Because those that complain the most have nothing constructive to say in their criticism. Steve Jobs (the person) maybe the one computer nerd to have an understanding of art and culture which if you ever bring yourself to see Steve Jobs (the movie) you would understand that.
you're confusing those who stated their dislike for the movie's narrative power and those who've stated their dislike for the way it was written. i didn't see it because i didn't like the way Sorkin re-coded the debunked Mac-stolen-from-Xerox myth. when i saw the Woz character yell: "You STOLE the user interface! What exactly DO YOU DO here?!" i knew it was not something i would enjoy, because of the way it was written.
as Gruber said, it's an ok story but it's not about the person Steve Jobs who actually lived.
I loved this movie and I suspect most (if not all) of the negative comments here come from people that did not see it. How do I know? Because those that complain the most have nothing constructive to say in their criticism. Steve Jobs (the person) maybe the one computer nerd to have an understanding of art and culture which if you ever bring yourself to see Steve Jobs (the movie) you would understand that.
you're confusing those who stated their dislike for the movie's narrative power and those who've stated their dislike for the way it was written. i didn't see it because i didn't like the way Sorkin re-coded the debunked Mac-stolen-from-Xerox myth. when i saw the Woz character yell: "You STOLE the user interface! What exactly DO YOU DO here?!" i knew it was not something i would enjoy, because of the way it was written.
as Gruber said, it's an ok story but it's not about the person Steve Jobs who actually lived.
I don't understand why most people insist this is a bio-pic when the creators never claimed that was their goal. There have already been several movies about Apple and Jobs' early years and that story does not need retelling at this time. First of all no one movie or book can depict a human being especially a very complex one like Jobs to any real accuracy, at best it will be a portrait that some people will recognize but not most.
This movie is not for those looking for a history text telling of that time and events. Instead we have a movie that juggles Jobs' drive, idealism, philosophy, relationships and vision a constructed reality framed by 3 major product launches. This launches are less about the products than the evolution of Jobs' life and goals. The keynote are really never shown for this reason, it is what it took personally to get to these points is the focus and the storyline. I know I will never convince anyone to like this movie but I want to explain why I like it so much. Just so you know, I have been a Mac fan since the first Power PC machine, subscribed to all the Mac centric magazines pre-internet, and have watch all the keynotes since they were put online. I was very familiar with the milestones and some of the back stories in this movie and I know quite well when artistic licenses was taken but I see the reason why and am grateful to this movie makers for taking them.
Comments
BTW, it wasn't difficult to figure out what they were doing with the dialogue and the product launches. Neither that nor an understanding of actual events behind the story was a means to appreciation with this film, sadly. I was hugely disappointed, and even more surprised as I expected to love it.
Seems Sorkin isn't Midas.
as Gruber said, it's an ok story but it's not about the person Steve Jobs who actually lived.
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/10/19/strange-saga-of-steve-jobs
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/10/22/mossberg-steve-jobs
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/10/09/tetzeli-steve-jobs-movie
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/10/26/steve-jobs-bombs
This movie is not for those looking for a history text telling of that time and events. Instead we have a movie that juggles Jobs' drive, idealism, philosophy, relationships and vision a constructed reality framed by 3 major product launches. This launches are less about the products than the evolution of Jobs' life and goals. The keynote are really never shown for this reason, it is what it took personally to get to these points is the focus and the storyline. I know I will never convince anyone to like this movie but I want to explain why I like it so much. Just so you know, I have been a Mac fan since the first Power PC machine, subscribed to all the Mac centric magazines pre-internet, and have watch all the keynotes since they were put online. I was very familiar with the milestones and some of the back stories in this movie and I know quite well when artistic licenses was taken but I see the reason why and am grateful to this movie makers for taking them.
Didn't know how to be compelling with the truth.