You should do your homework. HP is doing just fine as a corporation and deals in far more than consumer toys as is the case with Apple.
Despite clearly announcing yourself as a troll by saying that Apple only sells toys the facts from HP's last quarterly result were poorer than expected, far below the previous year's quarter, forecasted bad results for the following quarter, and thoroughly trounced by the "toy" company you despite so much.
So the movie with Kutcher is a made for tv movie now? That wasn't reported before. I thought that it was going to be an indie film.
I'll obviously be seeing both movies about Jobs, and I hope that at least one of them is decent, though I have some doubts about both of them, especially the one from Sony which is shaping up to be a Social Network clone, which sounds incredibly boring. They should update the Social Network movie to include today's failed IPO from Failbook. A lot of suckers got sucked into that one. Get ready for next week, and especially a week from now, because that's when shorting will be allowed.
In all fairness they are both "made for TV movies" in the sense that they are not great theatrical pieces written by talented writers. They are biopics. Biopics are typically dull, plodding, retellings of the details of someone's life and it's more important to get the details right than to have any good acting, drama or actual meaning to the film. They are exaggerated, dramatised, documentaries and thus not really "films" at all.
All that being said, I'm starting to think (the horrible Ashton Kuchner aside), that the jOBS pic might tend up being the better of the two. The reason being that the subject matter is far more interesting. The period *before* he was the famous Steve Jobs, when he was dropping acid and doing the garage startup and all that other spiritual stuff is not only mostly glossed over in biographies of his life, it's (by a long shot) actually the most interesting material.
The Sony movie seems likely to be a boring POS that tells the long boring story of this device being invented, and then this device being invented, and then Bill Gates blah, blah, blah. A person becomes who they are going to be in life between 12 and 24 years of age generally speaking. That's when the real story happens in everyone's life. There may be more impressive achievements later on, but achievements are often down to happenstance or perseverance or plain old luck.
Very little has been written about Steve Jobs "becoming" Steve Jobs (the period this movie seems to focus on), and if they do it even half assed well, it has the potential of being better than the Sony pic which will almost certainly be comprised of boring recreations of events we already know about by iconic yet boring characters who we won't give a toss about.
I will not be watching either of the movies being made because it sounds like they are just going to remake Pirates and do a number on Job's reputation.
After continued profit loses, poor decisions, job loses, and no compelling products on the horizon I wonder where HP will be when Apple completes their new campus on HP's old property?
And Mark "I'm being sued for $600,000,000 by my best friend" Zuckerberg was?
None of the CEOs of these big tech companies are nice guys. The reason they're so 'successful' is definitely tied to how bad they are (or, as some ruthless people would put it, how competitive they are).
The society still accept these people because, quite frankly, what else can you do about it?
I don't get how using the same garage 4 decades later adds any validity to the film over a reconstruction on a set that is made to resemble the original garage. If it's cheaper than a set then so be it, but I'd think some other on-site garage would likely be even cheaper and be just as effective.
I don't get how using the same garage 4 decades later adds any validity to the film over a reconstruction on a set that is made to resemble the original garage. If it's cheaper than a set then so be it, but I'd think some other on-site garage would likely be even cheaper and be just as effective.
Indeed. It's not like it's a unique or even interesting looking house or that the garage itself had any qualities that helped them out. they are likely just trying to drum up publicity by releasing little tidbits about the production.
Who in their right, unlobotomized mind, gives a sweet f*** whether Steve Jobs was a "nice guy"? Like, how is that even remotely germane to PRODUCTS?? Products are the entire point. For all I care he could be the biggest A-hole in the galaxy. As long as he didn't kick puppies and eat babies, none of that "personality" BS even matters. When I use my Apple gear, I feel enjoyment and satisfaction. My iPad has NOTHING to do with whether its creator was a nice person. No one in this world gives a damn. Can you produce groundbreaking tech? That's the question that matters. Save the nice guy stuff for your wife and friggin kids. Or don't. As a consumer I wouldn't care anyway.
The man was a genius. Period. As long as the rest of his conduct was more or less legal, every other consideration about him is secondary.
There are plenty of nice people in this world. It's commendable but not all that impressive when it comes to product.
After continued profit loses, poor decisions, job loses, and no compelling products on the horizon I wonder where HP will be when Apple completes their new campus on HP's old property?
I think Meg will sell the company to the highest bidder.... on eBay
I guess Levi Strauss and New Balance were unwilling to pay the "uncompromising" producers' fees. That's why Kutcher will wear ASICs and JCPenny instead. We'll all be blown away by the original garage, though--not.
The fact that Kutcher replaced Charlie Sheen, or tried to, on Two and a Half Men and that they want to use him in this movie shows unequivocally and without a doubt that Hollywood is clueless and doomed.
I wish I was that clueless and doomed and made the same money everyday.
Or wait, you meant the general public, who flock to movie theaters and pay to see anything? Or the "movie collectors" who repurchase the same movies on a different format every couple of years?
Maybe the filmmakers can get a bigger budget by using product placement with Apple. This would involve mentioning Apple a few times throughout the movie and showing an Apple product or two during the film.
Who in their right, unlobotomized mind, gives a sweet f*** whether Steve Jobs was a "nice guy"? Like, how is that even remotely germane to PRODUCTS?? Products are the entire point...
Being an a-hole (or not) is relative to a bio-pic, if not the products made by its subject. As far as the movie and most of its audience, the story is "man" first, "things" he pedaled only being relevant as a supporting role to the movie character, "SteveAshton JobsKucher"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Yeah, now who's laughing...? Oh wait, not HP.
You should do your homework. HP is doing just fine as a corporation and deals in far more than consumer toys as is the case with Apple.
Despite clearly announcing yourself as a troll by saying that Apple only sells toys the facts from HP's last quarterly result were poorer than expected, far below the previous year's quarter, forecasted bad results for the following quarter, and thoroughly trounced by the "toy" company you despite so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
So the movie with Kutcher is a made for tv movie now? That wasn't reported before. I thought that it was going to be an indie film.
I'll obviously be seeing both movies about Jobs, and I hope that at least one of them is decent, though I have some doubts about both of them, especially the one from Sony which is shaping up to be a Social Network clone, which sounds incredibly boring. They should update the Social Network movie to include today's failed IPO from Failbook. A lot of suckers got sucked into that one.
In all fairness they are both "made for TV movies" in the sense that they are not great theatrical pieces written by talented writers. They are biopics. Biopics are typically dull, plodding, retellings of the details of someone's life and it's more important to get the details right than to have any good acting, drama or actual meaning to the film. They are exaggerated, dramatised, documentaries and thus not really "films" at all.
All that being said, I'm starting to think (the horrible Ashton Kuchner aside), that the jOBS pic might tend up being the better of the two. The reason being that the subject matter is far more interesting. The period *before* he was the famous Steve Jobs, when he was dropping acid and doing the garage startup and all that other spiritual stuff is not only mostly glossed over in biographies of his life, it's (by a long shot) actually the most interesting material.
The Sony movie seems likely to be a boring POS that tells the long boring story of this device being invented, and then this device being invented, and then Bill Gates blah, blah, blah. A person becomes who they are going to be in life between 12 and 24 years of age generally speaking. That's when the real story happens in everyone's life. There may be more impressive achievements later on, but achievements are often down to happenstance or perseverance or plain old luck.
Very little has been written about Steve Jobs "becoming" Steve Jobs (the period this movie seems to focus on), and if they do it even half assed well, it has the potential of being better than the Sony pic which will almost certainly be comprised of boring recreations of events we already know about by iconic yet boring characters who we won't give a toss about.
"In an effort to be as accurate and authentic as possible, the early scenes of the film will be shot in Jobs' old Los Altos home and garage"
Yeah, sure.
I'm sure it had nothing absolutely nothing to do with their obviously awesome budget: "Let's go film it in a house."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apfeltosh
You should do your homework. HP is doing just fine as a corporation and deals in far more than consumer toys as is the case with Apple.
Sheesh.
Talk about an ironic post.
Time to get yourself edumacated, Apfel, and read all about the sorry state of HP:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2027742/HP-exit-tablet-PC-business-face-Apple-Google-onslaught.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apfeltosh
You should do your homework. HP is doing just fine as a corporation and deals in far more than consumer toys as is the case with Apple.
Sheesh.
Talk about an ironic post.
Time to get yourself edumacated, Apfel, and read all about the sorry state of HP:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2027742/HP-exit-tablet-PC-business-face-Apple-Google-onslaught.html
and yesterday http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/technology/hewlett-packard-plans-job-cutbacks.html
After continued profit loses, poor decisions, job loses, and no compelling products on the horizon I wonder where HP will be when Apple completes their new campus on HP's old property?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
And Mark "I'm being sued for $600,000,000 by my best friend" Zuckerberg was?
None of the CEOs of these big tech companies are nice guys. The reason they're so 'successful' is definitely tied to how bad they are (or, as some ruthless people would put it, how competitive they are).
The society still accept these people because, quite frankly, what else can you do about it?
Job's wasn't even a nice guy when he was a kid, let alone a CEO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Fred
Job's wasn't even a nice guy when he was a kid, let alone a CEO.
So what.
Someone like you is unlikely to watch it anyway, so who cares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't get how using the same garage 4 decades later adds any validity to the film over a reconstruction on a set that is made to resemble the original garage. If it's cheaper than a set then so be it, but I'd think some other on-site garage would likely be even cheaper and be just as effective.
Indeed. It's not like it's a unique or even interesting looking house or that the garage itself had any qualities that helped them out. they are likely just trying to drum up publicity by releasing little tidbits about the production.
Who in their right, unlobotomized mind, gives a sweet f*** whether Steve Jobs was a "nice guy"? Like, how is that even remotely germane to PRODUCTS?? Products are the entire point. For all I care he could be the biggest A-hole in the galaxy. As long as he didn't kick puppies and eat babies, none of that "personality" BS even matters. When I use my Apple gear, I feel enjoyment and satisfaction. My iPad has NOTHING to do with whether its creator was a nice person. No one in this world gives a damn. Can you produce groundbreaking tech? That's the question that matters. Save the nice guy stuff for your wife and friggin kids. Or don't. As a consumer I wouldn't care anyway.
The man was a genius. Period. As long as the rest of his conduct was more or less legal, every other consideration about him is secondary.
There are plenty of nice people in this world. It's commendable but not all that impressive when it comes to product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
After continued profit loses, poor decisions, job loses, and no compelling products on the horizon I wonder where HP will be when Apple completes their new campus on HP's old property?
I think Meg will sell the company to the highest bidder.... on eBay
Shouldn't it read "Get iNspired"?
I guess Levi Strauss and New Balance were unwilling to pay the "uncompromising" producers' fees. That's why Kutcher will wear ASICs and JCPenny instead. We'll all be blown away by the original garage, though--not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And "jOBS" isn't even in Myriad.
Oooh, you used Myriad in a sentence! (Heather would never do that ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apfeltosh
The fact that Kutcher replaced Charlie Sheen, or tried to, on Two and a Half Men and that they want to use him in this movie shows unequivocally and without a doubt that Hollywood is clueless and doomed.
I wish I was that clueless and doomed and made the same money everyday.
Or wait, you meant the general public, who flock to movie theaters and pay to see anything? Or the "movie collectors" who repurchase the same movies on a different format every couple of years?
Maybe the filmmakers can get a bigger budget by using product placement with Apple. This would involve mentioning Apple a few times throughout the movie and showing an Apple product or two during the film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Who in their right, unlobotomized mind, gives a sweet f*** whether Steve Jobs was a "nice guy"? Like, how is that even remotely germane to PRODUCTS?? Products are the entire point...
Being an a-hole (or not) is relative to a bio-pic, if not the products made by its subject. As far as the movie and most of its audience, the story is "man" first, "things" he pedaled only being relevant as a supporting role to the movie character, "SteveAshton JobsKucher"