From an acting standpoint, Tom Hanks could probably do just about anything, though he doesn't look like Jobs. Plus, I doubt he could be made to look young enough, or thin enough for the role.
Arguably, he bears a passing resemblance to post-40 Jobs. But that's not the most important thing. It's about whether an actor can bring off the combination of arrogance, irreverence and intellect, the use and usurping of people around him, the ability to tune out others ...
Gregory House is a character that embodies these Jobsian traits, and Laurie does a great House. And he does a great stare.
... the "over 40" Jobs is not the swearing asshole Jobs, he's the nice guy who laughs a lot. Jobs was only really an angry asshole in his twenties.
Have you not read the biography? Steve was still quite the asshole after the second coming. He was a bit mellowed by his experiences away from Apple, but he still didn't put up w/ idiots.
Have you not read the biography? Steve was still quite the asshole after the second coming. He was a bit mellowed by his experiences away from Apple, but he still didn't put up w/ idiots.
"Have you not read the biography" has become the quintessential weapon in debates surrounding Apple and Jobs. Some of you are using it as a *synonym* for "Are you stupid?"
Look, the biography is not a great piece of literature. It's an unreliable depiction of Jobs and Apple, replete with errors that should have been corrected in standard editorial review, misunderstanding of Apple technology (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3239732), not to mention mischaracterization of Jobs the man (e.g. http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/ge...eve_jobs_wrong).
No matter what, reading the bio is not equivalent to getting a university degree.
I personally can't stand Christian Bale, and Cruise's flakiness is box office death. Wyle is my choice not only for his dead-ringer looks, but because he's a seasoned actor who knew Jobs and has played him before.
Cloonie is just wrong for the part but is probably good for the box office.
If they run out of ideas just get Paul Giamatti and be done with it
What's with all the Clooney hate? I don't get it. He may not look exactly like SJ, but he's an extremely skilled actor with significant range. Having said that, he would struggle to play young SJ.
I like Wiley, but have doubts that he can carry a feature film.
Bale would be a great choice, as he seems to bring it with whatever he does.
I definitely don't want Norton, as he's a guy that I always see as Ed Norton and not the character he's playing. But, according to rumor, he could pull off the prickly parts of SJ's personality quite well, so he's got that going for him.
Robert Downey Jr. could do a great job.
In the end, looking exactly like SJ should not be the overwhelming factor. The ability to bring the energy and verve necessary for the role should be. Given that criteria, I would advocate for Bale or Downey Jr. An interesting, if strange, choice might be Jason Schwartzman. Don't know if he could bring the gravitas, though. Joseph Gordon Levitt (prob only for young SJ, though) could be another choice. Another Nolan-ite, Tom Hardy, could also be a choice.
I've found that, often times, casting choices can seem awful or strange at the time they're made (anyone else remember the outrage at Heath Ledger being cast as the Joker?), but the end result ends up almost wholly depending on the film as a whole, including the director, screenwriter, and co-stars involved. I'm much more concerned about who directs and writes the picture than I am about who plays SJ.
What's with all the Clooney hate? I don't get it. He may not look exactly like SJ, but he's an extremely skilled actor with significant range. Having said that, he would struggle to play young SJ.
Maybe they're still sore from Batman & Robin.
Quote:
I like Wiley, but have doubts that he can carry a feature film.
What do you think Pirates was?
Quote:
Robert Downey Jr. could do a great job.
I'm trying to think of whether I'd like him to play it as Tony Stark smarminess plus screaming and occasional crying or as a new character altogether. \
I don't think of smarminess when I think of Steve, though.
"Have you not read the biography" has become the quintessential weapon in debates surrounding Apple and Jobs. Some of you are using it as a *synonym* for "Are you stupid?"
Look, the biography is not a great piece of literature. It's an unreliable depiction of Jobs and Apple, replete with errors that should have been corrected in standard editorial review, misunderstanding of Apple technology (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3239732), not to mention mischaracterization of Jobs the man (e.g. http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/ge...eve_jobs_wrong).
No matter what, reading the bio is not equivalent to getting a university degree.
Nope, not using it as a synonym for anything. There are plenty of examples in the bio that specifically go against the claim that he was an easy going guy full of laughs and not an asshole after coming back to Apple. Hell, there are plenty of articles about that over the past 10 years that can be googled up. I haven't had a chance to listen to Siracusa's podcast about Jobs, but most of those comments in that first link all whine about details of OS X in the bio. I could give a shit about that, I already know about the history of that OS.
*shrug* Is relying entirely on the bio a bad idea, probably, but even just the direct quotes from Steve in there (which I really doubt he's altering) show he was not all unicorns and rainbows.
It's just bad casting for me. I don't dislike Clooney or his work (generally) - O Brother Where Art Thou is great for example - it's just...George Clooney as Steve Jobs? in what crazy world does that make any kind of sense? He's just not the right kind of guy for the role.
Daniel Day Lewis : he can act anyone else off the screen, and he can change his looks to suit. And he could do all the ages! There is no finer actor in my opinion.
Comments
Trim the eyebrows, add some stubble and we're done.
I think if you age Edward Norton with makeup, you could get the old Steve.
To hell with it, let's make it an MTV production and have the following cast:
Ben Aflik - SW
Steven Segal - SJ
Keano Reeves - Bill Gates
Jean-Claude Van Dam - Schmitt
Ben Stiller - J Ives
Don't forget Larry David as Sculley and Chuck Norris as head of security for iPhone 4 & 4S...
Please not George Clooney.
I second that. Noah gets my vote.
Casey Affleck.
That might work visually. Don't know if he has the range though.
Tom Hanks.
From an acting standpoint, Tom Hanks could probably do just about anything, though he doesn't look like Jobs. Plus, I doubt he could be made to look young enough, or thin enough for the role.
Arguably, he bears a passing resemblance to post-40 Jobs. But that's not the most important thing. It's about whether an actor can bring off the combination of arrogance, irreverence and intellect, the use and usurping of people around him, the ability to tune out others ...
Gregory House is a character that embodies these Jobsian traits, and Laurie does a great House. And he does a great stare.
Except ...
... the "over 40" Jobs is not the swearing asshole Jobs, he's the nice guy who laughs a lot. Jobs was only really an angry asshole in his twenties.
Have you not read the biography? Steve was still quite the asshole after the second coming. He was a bit mellowed by his experiences away from Apple, but he still didn't put up w/ idiots.
Have you not read the biography? Steve was still quite the asshole after the second coming. He was a bit mellowed by his experiences away from Apple, but he still didn't put up w/ idiots.
"Have you not read the biography" has become the quintessential weapon in debates surrounding Apple and Jobs. Some of you are using it as a *synonym* for "Are you stupid?"
Look, the biography is not a great piece of literature. It's an unreliable depiction of Jobs and Apple, replete with errors that should have been corrected in standard editorial review, misunderstanding of Apple technology (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3239732), not to mention mischaracterization of Jobs the man (e.g. http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/ge...eve_jobs_wrong).
No matter what, reading the bio is not equivalent to getting a university degree.
I personally can't stand Christian Bale, and Cruise's flakiness is box office death. Wyle is my choice not only for his dead-ringer looks, but because he's a seasoned actor who knew Jobs and has played him before.
Cloonie is just wrong for the part but is probably good for the box office.
If they run out of ideas just get Paul Giamatti and be done with it
\t
I like Wiley, but have doubts that he can carry a feature film.
Bale would be a great choice, as he seems to bring it with whatever he does.
I definitely don't want Norton, as he's a guy that I always see as Ed Norton and not the character he's playing. But, according to rumor, he could pull off the prickly parts of SJ's personality quite well, so he's got that going for him.
Robert Downey Jr. could do a great job.
In the end, looking exactly like SJ should not be the overwhelming factor. The ability to bring the energy and verve necessary for the role should be. Given that criteria, I would advocate for Bale or Downey Jr. An interesting, if strange, choice might be Jason Schwartzman. Don't know if he could bring the gravitas, though. Joseph Gordon Levitt (prob only for young SJ, though) could be another choice. Another Nolan-ite, Tom Hardy, could also be a choice.
I've found that, often times, casting choices can seem awful or strange at the time they're made (anyone else remember the outrage at Heath Ledger being cast as the Joker?), but the end result ends up almost wholly depending on the film as a whole, including the director, screenwriter, and co-stars involved. I'm much more concerned about who directs and writes the picture than I am about who plays SJ.
What's with all the Clooney hate? I don't get it. He may not look exactly like SJ, but he's an extremely skilled actor with significant range. Having said that, he would struggle to play young SJ.
Maybe they're still sore from Batman & Robin.
I like Wiley, but have doubts that he can carry a feature film.
What do you think Pirates was?
Robert Downey Jr. could do a great job.
I'm trying to think of whether I'd like him to play it as Tony Stark smarminess plus screaming and occasional crying or as a new character altogether.
I don't think of smarminess when I think of Steve, though.
Christian Bale's performance in American Psycho is amazing.
After reading that I now have an image in my head of Steve Jobs running around the Apple offices naked with a chainsaw!
I don't get all the hate for George Clooney.
Watch Batman & Robin
Hulk Hogan as Steve Ballmer
No, no, no! Revive John Candy for Ballmer.
Even at his mildest, Ed Norton is evil looking and not charismatic enough to play Jobs.
"Have you not read the biography" has become the quintessential weapon in debates surrounding Apple and Jobs. Some of you are using it as a *synonym* for "Are you stupid?"
Look, the biography is not a great piece of literature. It's an unreliable depiction of Jobs and Apple, replete with errors that should have been corrected in standard editorial review, misunderstanding of Apple technology (e.g. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3239732), not to mention mischaracterization of Jobs the man (e.g. http://daringfireball.net/2011/11/ge...eve_jobs_wrong).
No matter what, reading the bio is not equivalent to getting a university degree.
Nope, not using it as a synonym for anything. There are plenty of examples in the bio that specifically go against the claim that he was an easy going guy full of laughs and not an asshole after coming back to Apple. Hell, there are plenty of articles about that over the past 10 years that can be googled up. I haven't had a chance to listen to Siracusa's podcast about Jobs, but most of those comments in that first link all whine about details of OS X in the bio. I could give a shit about that, I already know about the history of that OS.
*shrug* Is relying entirely on the bio a bad idea, probably, but even just the direct quotes from Steve in there (which I really doubt he's altering) show he was not all unicorns and rainbows.
I don't get all the hate for George Clooney.
It's just bad casting for me. I don't dislike Clooney or his work (generally) - O Brother Where Art Thou is great for example - it's just...George Clooney as Steve Jobs? in what crazy world does that make any kind of sense? He's just not the right kind of guy for the role.