'Jobs' biopic disappoints at box office in opening weekend
Released last Friday to mostly negative reviews, "Jobs" starring Ashton Kutcher earned less than its studio hoped it would over the weekend.
Playing on 2,381 screens across the U.S., "Jobs" took in an estimated $6.7 million this weekend, with Sunday totals projected. That's less than the $8 million to $9 million that distributor Open Road Films hoped it would earn, according to Box Office Mojo.
Critics weren't impressed with the film, earning a rating of just 25 percent "fresh" on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.
Still, the movie has a good shot at turning a profit in theaters and through eventual DVD sales. The film had a reported production budget of $12 million, meaning "Jobs" made most of its money back in the first three days.
While "Jobs" from Open Road Films was an independent production, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs will be the subject of another upcoming film being produced by Sony and penned by Oscar-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin has described his film as "a play in three scenes," as it will be comprised entirely of backstage moments before the unveiling of three iconic products: the original Mac, NeXT, and the iPod.
Playing on 2,381 screens across the U.S., "Jobs" took in an estimated $6.7 million this weekend, with Sunday totals projected. That's less than the $8 million to $9 million that distributor Open Road Films hoped it would earn, according to Box Office Mojo.
Critics weren't impressed with the film, earning a rating of just 25 percent "fresh" on the review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.
Still, the movie has a good shot at turning a profit in theaters and through eventual DVD sales. The film had a reported production budget of $12 million, meaning "Jobs" made most of its money back in the first three days.
While "Jobs" from Open Road Films was an independent production, Apple co-founder Steve Jobs will be the subject of another upcoming film being produced by Sony and penned by Oscar-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin has described his film as "a play in three scenes," as it will be comprised entirely of backstage moments before the unveiling of three iconic products: the original Mac, NeXT, and the iPod.
Comments
It was a good Hollywood film. I've read virtually all of the books on Jobs and Woz, as well as Apple.
There was hardly an article on AppleInsider or anywhere else that when they mentioned the Kutcher version (he did a nice Job(s)) the writer had to kill himself to get right to the Sorkin film, as soon as possible, not giving this one a fair hearing. Sure there was license, that usually makes it better, at least in this one. It was an "emotional" film. Geeks might not like that, they already have their pre-formed opinion whereas I actually bothered to see it. I am buying a DVD and my g/f wants to get her own.
Geeks often don't give anyone a break. The difference between Hollywood and the technocrats is usually, budget, talent, film direction, story writing, and acting. In other words, the reasons they don't often do well with women... it's obsession.
Go see it and "enjoy" it.
One last thing... when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?
We see this time and time again.
If you don't have a good director/writer, the movie stinks and few will want to go see it. I really wish a GREAT director would have helmed the project and not this guy.
I recently saw the new Wizard of Oz... it wasn't good. I kept thinking how great Wes Anderson of a Wizard of Oz movie he could have made; not that he would accept the job.
This flop proves Apple is doomed!
I don't have a TV and so I haven't seen Kutcher in any comedic roles. My g/f has seen him on TV and thought he was OK. Her late husband was a fan of Steve Jobs and Apple.
We went to see it and would see it again. Do all grandfolks watch TV? I haven't had a TV on since 1997 and don't miss it. If you don't like something, be specific. The theater I was in was half full and it was mostly older people. No one left. Count us as 2 who saw it and who weren't swayed by critics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Not that I care about it, but Elysium brining in $13.6 million in its second weekend guarantees we won't have to see another landfill motion picture from this saga.
This and the fact that it is an in-your-face, between-the-eyes-with-a-2X4 political hack job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyfozz
Go see it and "enjoy" it.
One last thing... when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?
We are talking about Jobs so shouldn't that be... "One more thing..." when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?
/
/
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyfozz
Geeks often don't give anyone a break.
One last thing... when should ANYONE care what "critics" think?
They don't, if you consider that Metacritic (Rotten Tomatoes) scores are sometimes very different from audience scores. So you can't blame this on critics.
Secondly, I don't think this is a geek movie. It is mass market. So you can't blame this on the geeks either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
This flop proves Apple is doomed!
Constable Odo will say this flop proves it's time for Timid Timmy Cook to step down. This would never happen under Steve. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Because even the clueless grandmother movie goer read the marquee and said, "Ashton Kutcher as Steve Jobs? Skip."
I know he could probably pass looks wise, but since Ashton Kutcher is as dumb as a stump with regards to technology, I don't want to see it. I've seen snipets of other movies he's been in, but haven't been able to sit through the entire thing.
I'm sure it's got some novelty aspects that are worth watching, but I'll wait until it gets on cable within 6 months and not be caught by anyone. I'm not ashamed of being an Apple user, just ashamed that I'd actually pay to see Ashton Kutcher, he though he looks the part. The guy who played Woz is really embarrassing. I think they didn't cast Woz very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gowhitestripes
We see this time and time again.
If you don't have a good director/writer, the movie stinks and few will want to go see it. I really wish a GREAT director would have helmed the project and not this guy.
I recently saw the new Wizard of Oz... it wasn't good. I kept thinking how great Wes Anderson of a Wizard of Oz movie he could have made; not that he would accept the job.
I'd pay to see a Paul Thomas Anderson version, with either Joaquin Phoenix or Daniel Day-Lewis as a conflicted Steve Jobs who (artistic license) blows his brains out at the end of the movie. I guarantee critics would love it, and audiences would simply walk out of the theater, numb.
I don't even look at the critic's comments or ratings on Flixster. I rarely agree with them.
Michael Kelso as Steve Jobs?
How could that have failed?
I saw the movie this weekend and whether or not it was acurrate or not was the least of it's troubles. The acting was fine. The problem is that it is a badly made film. It made in-house History channel biopic's look like masterpieces by comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbyfozz
Geeks often don't give anyone a break. The difference between Hollywood and the technocrats is usually, budget, talent, film direction, story writing, and acting. In other words, the reasons they don't often do well with women... it's obsession.
Not necessarily. I depends on what the geeks choose to obsess over. If it's academics, computers, comic books, quantum physics, etc., then good luck to them finding a woman. But they obsess over fitness, playing sports, acting or singing in a rock band, these geeks will have little trouble finding women, with the appearance of the geeks being equal. Of course there are exceptions to either group. But it's true that there are many socially awkward yet very talented and obsessed geeks in entertainment and sports that don't have trouble finding women. Women find them. So if you're a geek, try to get into entertainment or sports. You'd have a more balanced life.
Factual error: A film has to gross more than twice the production costs to even come close to breaking even. Remember that the local movie theaters have to get their cut, and don't forget promotion costs.
So "Jobs" must gross over $24 million to catch up. I suppose the film could still do well overseas and, via DVD and PPV, make a decent profit. But, as it stands, it'll vanish from U.S. theaters real fast.
Now consider this exaggerated example: "The Lone Ranger" cost an estimated $215 million to film, plus promotion. So far, worldwide gross totals an estimated $217 million, but Disney still expects to take a $150 million bath. I suppose it's possible for overseas box office receipts and future DVD and PPV to make up some of this difference, but that won't change the fact that this film was a gigantic misstep.
So much for Hollywood.
Peace,
Gene
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Still, the movie has a good shot at turning a profit in theaters and through eventual DVD sales.
And through eventual rentals and sales on the iTunes Store.
I wanted this movie to make a ton of money because we would have got more Steve Jobs movies.
I want EVERY movie to be about Steve. Imagine Christoffer Nolan Dark Jobs Rising.
Superhero Jobs fights crime/evil around the world by inventing Igadgets and using guns.
Or Mission Possible.
Steve/Jony is the new Impossible Mission Force!
And don't forget all the Steve pron!