'Social Network' scribe 'strongly considering' Steve Jobs movie
Aaron Sorkin, an Oscar-winning screenwriter for his work on The Social Network, has said he is "strongly considering" writing a movie based on the life of Steve Jobs.
Sony has asked Sorkin to write the movie, it's an offer that he's currently weighing, he confirmed in a conversation with E! Online. He called him a "great artist" and "great thinker."
"Right now I'm just in the thinking-about-it stages," he reportedly said. "It's a really big movie and it's going to be a great movie no matter who writes it."
Rumors that Sorkin was asked to write the movie first surfaced last month, when it was said that he was the top choice for Sony. At the time, it was said that Sorkin was considering the project, but this week's comments by the screenwriter are the first official confirmation.
Sorkin tackled Silicon Valley in the film The Social network, an adapted screenplay based on the story of Mark Zuckerberg and his founding of Facebook. The movie earned Sorkin an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay.
Before the biography even went on sale to the public, Sony acquired the movie rights to Walter Isaacson's authorized take on the life of Jobs. The book has already gone on to become one of the best selling books of the year.
Previous films by Sorkin include Moneyball, The American President, and Charlie Wilson's War. He also worked on the TV shows The West Wing and Sports Night.
As for who might take on the role of Jobs, last week a rumor claimed that George Clooney and Noah Wyle were both in contention to play the Apple co-founder in Sony's big-screen adaptation. Wyle already played Jobs once in the 1999 TV movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley," which also featured Joey Slotnick playing Apple's Steve Wozniak.
Sony has asked Sorkin to write the movie, it's an offer that he's currently weighing, he confirmed in a conversation with E! Online. He called him a "great artist" and "great thinker."
"Right now I'm just in the thinking-about-it stages," he reportedly said. "It's a really big movie and it's going to be a great movie no matter who writes it."
Rumors that Sorkin was asked to write the movie first surfaced last month, when it was said that he was the top choice for Sony. At the time, it was said that Sorkin was considering the project, but this week's comments by the screenwriter are the first official confirmation.
Sorkin tackled Silicon Valley in the film The Social network, an adapted screenplay based on the story of Mark Zuckerberg and his founding of Facebook. The movie earned Sorkin an Academy Award for best adapted screenplay.
Before the biography even went on sale to the public, Sony acquired the movie rights to Walter Isaacson's authorized take on the life of Jobs. The book has already gone on to become one of the best selling books of the year.
Previous films by Sorkin include Moneyball, The American President, and Charlie Wilson's War. He also worked on the TV shows The West Wing and Sports Night.
As for who might take on the role of Jobs, last week a rumor claimed that George Clooney and Noah Wyle were both in contention to play the Apple co-founder in Sony's big-screen adaptation. Wyle already played Jobs once in the 1999 TV movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley," which also featured Joey Slotnick playing Apple's Steve Wozniak.
Comments
Sold, American.
One of our greatest American screenwriters wants to write the movie about one of our greatest Americans?
Sold, American.
If Aaron Sorkin was one of my country's "greatest screenwriters," I would be ashamed.
He is a workman like guy who does a good job with pseudo-historical re-enactment drama.
None of his movies and shows are anything special. They aren't bad, but they aren't Oscar material or anything.
In the 70's he'd be the guy penning all those "movies of the week" on whatever the issue of the day was at the time.
If Aaron Sorkin was one of my country's "greatest screenwriters," I would be ashamed.
He is a workman like guy who does a good job with pseudo-historical re-enactment drama.
None of his movies and shows are anything special. They aren't bad, but they aren't Oscar material or anything.
In the 70's he'd be the guy penning all those "movies of the week" on whatever the issue of the day was at the time.
When you grew up and decided you didn't want to work in the movies. Well. All I'm saying is, Thanks.
When you grew up and decided you didn't want to work in the movies. Well. All I'm saying is, Thanks.
The right punctuation would make this make sense. Just a suggestion.
You can start and end it with the anti iPhone quotes.
I am glad we will get a movie about Steve Job
The right punctuation would make this make sense. Just a suggestion.
Use of Word "right" wh[e]n you* meant "proper" made, this so; hard t' understand.
2bsrs4asec I would like to see Goldman write it. Mamet would also be a hoot. Sorkin also makes sense because it needs to be character and dialogue driven.
None of his movies and shows are anything special. They aren't bad, but they aren't Oscar material or anything.
The Academy disagree.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0815070/awards
Use of Word "right" wh[e]n you* meant "proper" made, this so; hard t' understand.
Right. Correct. Proper.
*fanfare*
SYNONYMS!
The difference here is that your WORDS don't make any sense on their own.
Before the biography even went on sale to the public, Sony acquired the movie rights to Walter Isaacson's authorized take on the life of Jobs. The book has already gone on to become one of the best selling books of the year.
I thought the biography was pretty bad. It was mainly human interest gossip about an eccentric fellow, when the real story should have been the passion, insight and abilities that let Jobs accomplish so much. Kind of like a book about music by someone who is tone deaf. I hope the script is only loosely based on this book.
If Aaron Sorkin was one of my country's "greatest screenwriters," I would be ashamed.
He is a workman like guy who does a good job with pseudo-historical re-enactment drama.
None of his movies and shows are anything special. They aren't bad, but they aren't Oscar material or anything.
In the 70's he'd be the guy penning all those "movies of the week" on whatever the issue of the day was at the time.
Oh you're right. Maybe Bill O'Reilly is available. He's all about the 'facts.'
Oh you're right. Maybe Bill O'Reilly is available. He's all about the 'facts.'
Political talk remains in PoliticalOutsider.
The right punctuation would make this make sense. Just a suggestion.
I have no idea what was meant by that myself.
My only point was that the kind of movies this guy writes are fine, but the quality is about the level of what used to be called a "movie of the week" in the 70's (to differentiate it from a "real" movie which at the time was assumed to be an attempt at dramatic art).
Anyone who was alive in the 60's and 70's probably knows what I'm talking about, those born later will assume that such bio-pics are valid movie art in and of themselves and not realise the difference.
It won't be a "real" movie that tells a story with dramatic impact and has some kind of meaning. It will be a workman like re-enactment of some aspects of Steve's life so we can all feel like flies on the wall and understand him a bit better.
It will be a "dramatisation" instead of a real drama.
There is a difference, and movie audiences today will be satisfied only because today's standards are so low.
No one should ever win an oscar for this kind of writing. "The Social Network" was enjoyable enough to watch, it's just an abomination to imply that this kind of thing is worthy of an Oscar or is anything like a real drama.
I have no idea what was meant by that myself.
My only point was that the kind of movies this guy writes are fine, but the quality is about the level of what used to be called a "movie of the week" in the 70's (to differentiate it from a "real" movie which at the time was assumed to be an attempt at dramatic art).
Anyone who was alive in the 60's and 70's probably knows what I'm talking about, those born later will assume that such bio-pics are valid movie art in and of themselves and not realise the difference.
It won't be a "real" movie that tells a story with dramatic impact and has some kind of meaning. It will be a workman like re-enactment of some aspects of Steve's life so we can all feel like flies on the wall and understand him a bit better.
It will be a "dramatisation" instead of a real drama.
There is a difference, and movie audiences today will be satisfied only because today's standards are so low.
No one should ever win an oscar for this kind of writing. "The Social Network" was enjoyable enough to watch, it's just an abomination to imply that this kind of thing is worthy of an Oscar or is anything like a real drama.
Here, I'll spell it out:
YOUR THOUGHTS ON MOVIES ARE JEJUNE
Here, I'll spell it out:
YOUR THOUGHTS ON MOVIES ARE JEJUNE
Yours are just rude (shouting) and a tiny bit pretentious (jejune).
Oh you're right. Maybe Bill O'Reilly is available. He's all about the 'facts.'
My point was kind of the opposite of that. *Sorkin* is actually "all about the facts."
What I'm suggesting is wait a few years and produce a movie about Steve Jobs that is a work of art and not just "about the facts."
Do the man justice and think about the product being produced instead of just rushing out some biopic movie of the week crap and then giving it an undeserved Oscar so everyone can pat themselves on the back.
Yours are just rude (shouting) and a tiny bit pretentious (jejune).
My 'shouting' and use of the word jejune (how is using a word that exists in the dictionary any more pretentious than grand statements about dramaturgy and ageist comments about the quality of movies today?) were not in relation to thoughts on movies. Reading comprehension FTW.
Now, i'll assume we're done.
What did you find so lacking about the Social Network, which was more fiction than fact, more drama than dramatisation, according to most critics
Here, I'll spell it out:
Fine, since you won't clarify your post, I'll make my own assumptions about what it says below. Please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret your meaning.
When you grew up and decided you didn't want to work in the movies. Well. All I'm saying is, Thanks.
I thank you for deciding to forgo your childhood ambition of working in the movie industry.
How's that? Is that what you meant? And if it is, do you know that he had a childhood ambition of working in the movie industry? If not, don't make nonsensical assumptions about others.
Yours are just rude (shouting) and a tiny bit pretentious (jejune).
rofl
My 'shouting' and use of the word jejune (how is using a word that exists in the dictionary any more pretentious than grand statements about dramaturgy and ageist comments about the quality of movies today?) were not in relation to thoughts on movies. Reading comprehension FTW.
Now, i'll assume we're done.
What did you find so lacking about the Social Network, which was more fiction than fact, more drama than dramatisation, according to most critics
Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
I don't think we are even arguing with the same basic assumptions so there is no possibility for this to come to any reasonable conclusion.
I would argue that you are conflating "popular" with "good," and thus will never agree with me that Sorkin isn't actually so much a good dramatic writer, as he is a popular writer of historical psuedo-dramas.
I don't agree that "popular" equals "good." Therefore we won't really ever agree on this.