Only two people but myself and a friends son have no interest in seeing this movie soley because of Kutcher. He's not a good fit for that role to us, can't take him seriously as a serious actor. They went for the 'young and hip' fan base and blew it, pick a respectable young-ish actor or a unknown who can pull it off, not the guy who married a lady almost twice his age, does corny Nikon commercials, has never made a big budget hit movie, and did Punk'd. That all equals flop.
I don't have a lot of time to catch flicks, so I depend on either word of mouth, or certain critics whose values I trust. Currently that falls to James Berardinelli.
So, for those of you that have seen this already, and have the patience to read his review (search for Reelviews)... how close is how he felt about it to your own experience?
Thanks, and no, I'm not shilling for his site, or trying to derail the thread.
I'd say that review is not bad at all, and certainly fair.
Only two people but myself and a friends son have no interest in seeing this movie soley because of Kutcher. He's not a good fit for that role to us, can't take him seriously as a serious actor. They went for the 'young and hip' fan base and blew it, pick a respectable young-ish actor or a unknown who can pull it off, not the guy who married a lady almost twice his age, does corny Nikon commercials, has never made a big budget hit movie, and did Punk'd. That all equals flop.
Why do you consider it a negative thing for someone to have an older spouse?
Why do you consider it a negative thing for someone to have an older spouse?
It's not... If you're a girl.
Kidding- my wife is 2 yrs older. Although 27 and 43 sounds like a big disparity for women being the older- men do it all the time. But I think both aren't good ideas. "Don't marry outside your demographic". Wise words.
So you're suggesting that a movie like Lone Ranger should have grossed more than ~$650M to break even?! Highly unlikely.
That person talking about $3 for every $1 hasn't a clue how the Movie industry has changed. The Theaters don't take in or get to demand a fraction of the percentage they once controlled with film distribution and showing.
It's been flipped on its head. Any film that matches its budget domestically is guaranteed a sequel if one is in the works. The foreign take typically matches domestic or greater.
However there won't be a sequel to The Lone Ranger. It did $217 Million World Wide on a $215 Million budget before marketing.
Man of Steel: $648.6 million World Wide on a $225 Million budget before marketing.
I haven't the faintest idea why anybody would want to see this. It looks about as well-made as your average 1980's TV movie of the week. It's a fucking embarrassment.
Saw the movie Friday. It's exactly what I was expecting (and I went in not expecting to be wowed but hoping to enjoy parts). Ashton looks the part but sounds like Kelso... all the time. Annoyingly so much so that I found myself paying more attention to the supporting cast more than the main character. Likewise I was annoyed by Joushua Gad's portrayal of Woz: while I appreciated his attempt at adding emotion to his portrayal, his voicing sounding like a cross between softspoken and out of breath (like he had just run a mile) was truly baffling. As was his GI Joe beard that looked ready to fall off due to poor gluing. As Woz alluded to, a lot of the more important interactions were left out of the film. The one nice touch I have to say (which added a human element to the cardboard cutout acting) is the closing of the film when they show original photos of each character alongside their actor counterpart.
As an Atari fan I was interested in this pre-Apple period as well. And I have to say the Atari scene was a completely made up and nonfactual scene, just horrible. They somehow have him joining up after his trip to India (which actually came during his time at Atari, and in fact Atari helped with the transportation), and they combine his two terms at the company (between 1973 and 1976) into one brief time in 1976. They have Atari still manufacturing the original PONG arcade machine in 1976 (false), and they have Jobs complaining about a game not being in color with an unknown Atari engineer stating it’s impossible to do…when in fact Atari (via Kee) had released it’s first full color game in 1975 – Indy 800, designed by Steve Bristow. They portray Jobs as a game designer/engineer when he was just a tech at Atari. Likewise, they have Al Alcorn assigning Breakout to Jobs when it was Nolan and Steve Bristow that did… Al didn’t even know it had been assigned to anyone, he suddenly saw Woz’s proto several days after the original game design discussion with Nolan and Bristow. They also present Breakout as being “programmed” (they need Jobs to “fix the bugs in the program”) when there’s no cpu or code in the game. Breakout was one of the last of Atari’s “state machine” games, the original method for creating arcade video games (where all of the game’s logic is done directly by discrete components on the pcb. The game is enineered, not coded). And even then, the scene where they have Jobs showing it off has a final glaring error: they used an actual Breakout game for the scene complete with scoring. Woz’s proto didn’t have onscreen scoring, he used separate LEDs. That and several other issues (it’s use of RAM, it’s lack of support for a coin mechanism, etc.) lead to that prototype not being used and Breakout having to be redesigned. They also left out the third co-founder (Ron Wayne from Atari), the fact that Rod Holt was from Atari (thanks to Al), and that a lot of the parts for the manufacturing of the Apple 1s came from Atari as well.
I understand the need to compress those three years because of the time constraints of the film, but to have that much factually wrong is horrible.
It's a bit weird that the worms haven't even finish eating him, yet he's already being portrayed as an historical hero. Would have been better to wait a few more years at least.
Poole wanted a docudrama on Steve jobs. With a healthy helping of apple legend.
But that's not what this was.
This was Ashton kutcher trying to be more than he is.
Jobs was a legend. A very serious man, passionate about perfection.
Kutcher is a buffoon. He was the perfectly wrong choice for this film. And the single biggest reason for its failure. He might do well in some genres, but not this.
He may have done a decent job acting like Steve, but no one will know because they won't go after seeing his name as the headliner.
Then there are the huge innacuracies and woeful portrayals of everything else.
It's a movie not at all worthy of its namesake.
Hopefully a real, true movie comes out based on isaacsons book. And it would be great if Steve's bride would be consulted on the new one.
The movie was meh overall. It wasn't terrible, even for this geek who has read all the books on Jobs and Apple. It wasn't great either. There were some interesting moments and some that make you wish they had done better.
The best moment in the movie is the scene between Jobs and Ive. The actor playing Ive nailed him.
Did anyone else from Apple 2.0 make it in the movie? Seems a bit odd that they'd throw Ive in there but no one else.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by macdaddykane
When I think about Steve Jobs, I want to remember Steve Jobs, not Ashton Kutcher......
When you look in the mirror, do you see yourself? Or macdaddykane?
Quote:
Originally Posted by macdaddykane
When I think about Steve Jobs, I want to remember Steve Jobs, not Ashton Kutcher......
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
When you look in the mirror, do you see yourself? Or macdaddykane?
He sees Ashton Kutcher.
Only two people but myself and a friends son have no interest in seeing this movie soley because of Kutcher. He's not a good fit for that role to us, can't take him seriously as a serious actor. They went for the 'young and hip' fan base and blew it, pick a respectable young-ish actor or a unknown who can pull it off, not the guy who married a lady almost twice his age, does corny Nikon commercials, has never made a big budget hit movie, and did Punk'd. That all equals flop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63
Allow me to turn your statement on its ear...
I don't have a lot of time to catch flicks, so I depend on either word of mouth, or certain critics whose values I trust. Currently that falls to James Berardinelli.
So, for those of you that have seen this already, and have the patience to read his review (search for Reelviews)... how close is how he felt about it to your own experience?
Thanks, and no, I'm not shilling for his site, or trying to derail the thread.
I'd say that review is not bad at all, and certainly fair.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman
Only two people but myself and a friends son have no interest in seeing this movie soley because of Kutcher. He's not a good fit for that role to us, can't take him seriously as a serious actor. They went for the 'young and hip' fan base and blew it, pick a respectable young-ish actor or a unknown who can pull it off, not the guy who married a lady almost twice his age, does corny Nikon commercials, has never made a big budget hit movie, and did Punk'd. That all equals flop.
Why do you consider it a negative thing for someone to have an older spouse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't even look at the critic's comments or ratings on Flixster. I rarely agree with them.
How do you know you agree or disagree with comments you don't even look at?
Absolutely nothing about this movie looks appealing. The cast alone causes me to cringe.
It's not... If you're a girl.
Kidding- my wife is 2 yrs older. Although 27 and 43 sounds like a big disparity for women being the older- men do it all the time. But I think both aren't good ideas. "Don't marry outside your demographic". Wise words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
So you're suggesting that a movie like Lone Ranger should have grossed more than ~$650M to break even?! Highly unlikely.
That person talking about $3 for every $1 hasn't a clue how the Movie industry has changed. The Theaters don't take in or get to demand a fraction of the percentage they once controlled with film distribution and showing.
It's been flipped on its head. Any film that matches its budget domestically is guaranteed a sequel if one is in the works. The foreign take typically matches domestic or greater.
However there won't be a sequel to The Lone Ranger. It did $217 Million World Wide on a $215 Million budget before marketing.
Man of Steel: $648.6 million World Wide on a $225 Million budget before marketing.
They announced the MoS sequel with Batman.
Saw the movie Friday. It's exactly what I was expecting (and I went in not expecting to be wowed but hoping to enjoy parts). Ashton looks the part but sounds like Kelso... all the time. Annoyingly so much so that I found myself paying more attention to the supporting cast more than the main character. Likewise I was annoyed by Joushua Gad's portrayal of Woz: while I appreciated his attempt at adding emotion to his portrayal, his voicing sounding like a cross between softspoken and out of breath (like he had just run a mile) was truly baffling. As was his GI Joe beard that looked ready to fall off due to poor gluing. As Woz alluded to, a lot of the more important interactions were left out of the film. The one nice touch I have to say (which added a human element to the cardboard cutout acting) is the closing of the film when they show original photos of each character alongside their actor counterpart.
As an Atari fan I was interested in this pre-Apple period as well. And I have to say the Atari scene was a completely made up and nonfactual scene, just horrible. They somehow have him joining up after his trip to India (which actually came during his time at Atari, and in fact Atari helped with the transportation), and they combine his two terms at the company (between 1973 and 1976) into one brief time in 1976. They have Atari still manufacturing the original PONG arcade machine in 1976 (false), and they have Jobs complaining about a game not being in color with an unknown Atari engineer stating it’s impossible to do…when in fact Atari (via Kee) had released it’s first full color game in 1975 – Indy 800, designed by Steve Bristow. They portray Jobs as a game designer/engineer when he was just a tech at Atari. Likewise, they have Al Alcorn assigning Breakout to Jobs when it was Nolan and Steve Bristow that did… Al didn’t even know it had been assigned to anyone, he suddenly saw Woz’s proto several days after the original game design discussion with Nolan and Bristow. They also present Breakout as being “programmed” (they need Jobs to “fix the bugs in the program”) when there’s no cpu or code in the game. Breakout was one of the last of Atari’s “state machine” games, the original method for creating arcade video games (where all of the game’s logic is done directly by discrete components on the pcb. The game is enineered, not coded). And even then, the scene where they have Jobs showing it off has a final glaring error: they used an actual Breakout game for the scene complete with scoring. Woz’s proto didn’t have onscreen scoring, he used separate LEDs. That and several other issues (it’s use of RAM, it’s lack of support for a coin mechanism, etc.) lead to that prototype not being used and Breakout having to be redesigned. They also left out the third co-founder (Ron Wayne from Atari), the fact that Rod Holt was from Atari (thanks to Al), and that a lot of the parts for the manufacturing of the Apple 1s came from Atari as well.
I understand the need to compress those three years because of the time constraints of the film, but to have that much factually wrong is horrible.
Originally Posted by n057828
Zion Hollywood don't care about mega rich Arab!
Hmm. Quick way to get banned or quickest way to get banned?
You didn't see The Social Network?
Poole wanted a docudrama on Steve jobs. With a healthy helping of apple legend.
But that's not what this was.
This was Ashton kutcher trying to be more than he is.
Jobs was a legend. A very serious man, passionate about perfection.
Kutcher is a buffoon. He was the perfectly wrong choice for this film. And the single biggest reason for its failure. He might do well in some genres, but not this.
He may have done a decent job acting like Steve, but no one will know because they won't go after seeing his name as the headliner.
Then there are the huge innacuracies and woeful portrayals of everything else.
It's a movie not at all worthy of its namesake.
Hopefully a real, true movie comes out based on isaacsons book. And it would be great if Steve's bride would be consulted on the new one.
I'll would watch it on Netflix. If it's as bad as the previews... I don't have to feel I got burned and can just switch to another movie.
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Hopefully a real, true movie comes out… …based on isaacsons book.
I'm getting a mixed message here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You didn't see The Social Network?
downloading now
Mediocre all the way!