It is troubled because they lose directors, studios, and can't get anyone to commit to acting in it. The article says nothing about Jeff Daniels committing to the project. It actually confirms he is not even attached to the project. It only says he is at the top of a list, which means nothing.
It is troubled because they lose directors, studios, and can't get anyone to commit to acting in it. The article says nothing about Jeff Daniels committing to the project. It actually confirms he is not even attached to the project. It only says he is at the top of a list, which means nothing.
I'm betting this is very common, you just aren't following those movies, and so it seems "troubled." Lots of movies that have won oscars have all sorts of "did you know that XX turned down the roll?" trivia etc.
Daniels is good in The Newsroom, which is a Sorkin project. I'm surprised Bradley Whitford hasn't signed on for someone.
Losing Christian Bale in my mind made this movie a fail. It is based on that horrible book.
It may not be based on "that horrible book".
Aaron Sorkin: "This movie is based on 3 scenes and 3 scenes only and takes place in real time... 1/2 half hour for the audience will be 1/2 hour for the character on screen..there will be no time cuts. All three scenes take place backstage before product launch. ..The Mac.. The NeXT [Workstation]... The iPod".
see 3:00 market into the following video for more info:
Certainly true. Further, as much as Steve Jobs passing was sad, a shock, even to those who did not follow him or Apple, or the computer industry, I think a market for a Steve Jobs movie is passed and wasn't all that strong to begin with.
The Isaacson biography was not all that good -- it's easy to put down -- and limiting the movie to three thematic periods is a problem. It simply sounds like there is very little of a good story present. It is not clear that the character of Steve Jobs can carry a movie like the real Steve Jobs carried Apple.
... and limiting the movie to three thematic periods is a problem. It simply sounds like there is very little of a good story present. ...
I think what a lot of people may miss is that Steve Jobs went through an evolutionary transformation over the course of his career and learned a lot along the way based on his past experiences. I think he refined himself and his approach to business as much as he refined his products. Thus, I think the 3 scenes, selected by Sorkin, at different points in his career will represent an interesting look at how the man matured over the years and will try to explain why he changed.
I, for one, am really glad that Tom Cruise isn't involved. He's a terrible actor. He'd probably be worse than Kutcher. And Jeff Daniels playing 80's Sculley? I guess they're planning some special effects to make him look younger.
I, for one, am really glad that Tom Cruise isn't involved. He's a terrible actor. He'd probably be worse than Kutcher.
Tom Cruise is a great actor:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Skip to 1:40 in the following video and imagine it's the phone exchange between Jobs and Eric Schmidt when he found out Google was making Android, Jobs tore him a new one and Schmidt's face apparently went all weird:
[VIDEO]
Tom Cruise has a lot of energy and he has a good way of putting across a confident message, which is something Jobs did well.
...I think a market for a Steve Jobs movie is passed and wasn't all that strong to begin with.
The Isaacson biography was not all that good... It is not clear that the character of Steve Jobs can carry a movie like the real Steve Jobs carried Apple.
You are raising a good point, not that strong of an audience -- especially among those that don't follow the "transformations" in the computer industry and/or Apple in particular. They will only see the movie on a ton of positive word of mouth.
#1: This film could be perceived as a commercial for Apple. [Many of my "anti-Apple you've drank the kool aid types" and tech media may push this one.]
#2: As a basic, boring bio-pic like something from the 1940's [Just saw the 1942 Errol Flynn bio-pic "Gentleman Jim," on the good side of basic AND still basic.]
How about using the standard movie device of the middle class boy overcomes (fill in the blank -- adversity) to inspire a revolution! Talk about basic? -- yeah well, it seems to draw in an audience. Jobs had adventures as a hippy-freak to be a millionaire in his early 20's.
Comments
Next time, read the first sentence in the article.
No.
How is it "troubled"?
It is troubled because they lose directors, studios, and can't get anyone to commit to acting in it. The article says nothing about Jeff Daniels committing to the project. It actually confirms he is not even attached to the project. It only says he is at the top of a list, which means nothing.
It is troubled because they lose directors, studios, and can't get anyone to commit to acting in it. The article says nothing about Jeff Daniels committing to the project. It actually confirms he is not even attached to the project. It only says he is at the top of a list, which means nothing.
I'm betting this is very common, you just aren't following those movies, and so it seems "troubled." Lots of movies that have won oscars have all sorts of "did you know that XX turned down the roll?" trivia etc.
Daniels is good in The Newsroom, which is a Sorkin project. I'm surprised Bradley Whitford hasn't signed on for someone.
And then, Doomed.™
LOL
Apple (Movie) is Doomed.
Losing Christian Bale in my mind made this movie a fail. It is based on that horrible book.
Losing Christian Bale in my mind made this movie a fail. It is based on that horrible book.
It may not be based on "that horrible book".
Aaron Sorkin: "This movie is based on 3 scenes and 3 scenes only and takes place in real time... 1/2 half hour for the audience will be 1/2 hour for the character on screen..there will be no time cuts. All three scenes take place backstage before product launch. ..The Mac.. The NeXT [Workstation]... The iPod".
see 3:00 market into the following video for more info:
Certainly true. Further, as much as Steve Jobs passing was sad, a shock, even to those who did not follow him or Apple, or the computer industry, I think a market for a Steve Jobs movie is passed and wasn't all that strong to begin with.
The Isaacson biography was not all that good -- it's easy to put down -- and limiting the movie to three thematic periods is a problem. It simply sounds like there is very little of a good story present. It is not clear that the character of Steve Jobs can carry a movie like the real Steve Jobs carried Apple.
... and limiting the movie to three thematic periods is a problem. It simply sounds like there is very little of a good story present. ...
I think what a lot of people may miss is that Steve Jobs went through an evolutionary transformation over the course of his career and learned a lot along the way based on his past experiences. I think he refined himself and his approach to business as much as he refined his products. Thus, I think the 3 scenes, selected by Sorkin, at different points in his career will represent an interesting look at how the man matured over the years and will try to explain why he changed.
http://defamer.gawker.com/leaked-the-nightmare-email-drama-behind-sonys-steve-jo-1668882936/+laceydonohue
Oh my God, what would the keynote scenes be like if Tom Cruise accepted :-)
Tom Cruise is a great actor:
[VIDEO]
[VIDEO]
Skip to 1:40 in the following video and imagine it's the phone exchange between Jobs and Eric Schmidt when he found out Google was making Android, Jobs tore him a new one and Schmidt's face apparently went all weird:
[VIDEO]
Tom Cruise has a lot of energy and he has a good way of putting across a confident message, which is something Jobs did well.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/12/leaked-sony-e-mails-reveal-aaron-sorkin-wanted-tom-cruise-as-steve-jobs/
They can hire Nicole Kidman for Laurene and then we can get some Eyes Wide Shut action in there too.
Cruise might want a paycheck that would blow the budget but he would definitely help sell the movie.
...I think a market for a Steve Jobs movie is passed and wasn't all that strong to begin with.
The Isaacson biography was not all that good... It is not clear that the character of Steve Jobs can carry a movie like the real Steve Jobs carried Apple.
You are raising a good point, not that strong of an audience -- especially among those that don't follow the "transformations" in the computer industry and/or Apple in particular. They will only see the movie on a ton of positive word of mouth.
#1: This film could be perceived as a commercial for Apple. [Many of my "anti-Apple you've drank the kool aid types" and tech media may push this one.]
#2: As a basic, boring bio-pic like something from the 1940's [Just saw the 1942 Errol Flynn bio-pic "Gentleman Jim," on the good side of basic AND still basic.]
How about using the standard movie device of the middle class boy overcomes (fill in the blank -- adversity) to inspire a revolution! Talk about basic? -- yeah well, it seems to draw in an audience. Jobs had adventures as a hippy-freak to be a millionaire in his early 20's.
Scandal Celebrity Nude -Taylor Swift, Abigail Spencer,Ali Michael,Amanda Bynes,Kate Bosworth
.............................................