"Nobody did this movie to get rich," Sorkin said. "Secondly, Tim Cook should really see the movie before he decides what it is."
Sorkin reserved his most piercing barb for last, "Third, if you've got a factory full of children in China assembling phones for 17 cents an hour you've got a lot of nerve calling someone else opportunistic."
Don't defend your movie, Sorkin. Attack Tim Cook some more. Stay classy, Sorkin.
His rant doesn't answer the question of WHY they did this movie. If not for "getting rich" then what? Did they do it "for Steve"? For his family? For a charity? For art? Are the filmmakers donating the profits from this movie to help Chinese factory slaves?
Here's the full quote in context. Colbert asked Apple CEO Tim Cook for his thoughts on the recent spate of Steve Jobs movies and documentaries. Cook's response:
"I haven’t seen them. But the Steve I knew was an amazing human being. He’s someone who you wanted to do your best work [for]. He invented things that I think other people could not, he saw things that other people could not. He had this uncanny ability to see around the corner, and to describe a future—not an evolutionary future, but a revolutionary future. He was a joy to work with and I love him dearly. I miss him everyday. I think a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic, and I hate this. It’s not a great part of our world."
Definitely not seeing this movie now (wasn't planning on seeing it anyway).
Why? First,the film's had universally great reviews. Second, Sorkin is absolutely right. Cook was talking out of his ass to criticize a movie he (and most people) have't even seen yet, and calling its makers opportunistic is both insulting and hypocritical.
Your investors expect to make money off of this film, Sorkin. With a purported $30 million budget you're damn right people are expecting to capitalize on it and expect you to do the most as a writer/creator with this opportunity, you opportunist.
That's beside the point. The screenwriter, director, and key actors all reportedly worked for less than their usual pay to get the film made. Remember that they went through a couple of directors and several lead actors before finalizing the cast. Also, what's wrong with making money on a film? Since when is Apple a non-profit?
On the other hand, I don't agree that child labor should be automatically a disqualifier for Chinese companies. So long as they can prove that the kids are not being forced to work there, factory work is the only means to a fast way out of crushing poverty for much of the Chinese population.
Wow, you are really on the fringes of right-wing ideology, aren't you?
We'll see. I seem to recall the iBookstore not selling a book that was unflattering to Jobs.
As you can see, Tim Cook apparently has no qualms about prominently featuring the books and films he's criticized on Apple's book and movie stores... Who's being opportunistic?
The fact that Sorkin is using the most valid source materiel, Walter Isaacson's official Jobs biography, and has top level talent willing to work with him, would suggest that his movie is an even handed view of Steve Jobs.
As mentioned by other people here, Apple does make enough profit and is regularly mentioned in labor issues in China... so no smoke without fire. And $79 for a USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter is certainly opportunistic on Apples part! So Tim Cook should not judge without first viewing the evidence first hand.
As you can see, Tim Cook apparently has no qualms about prominently featuring the books and films he's criticized on Apple's book and movie stores... Who's being opportunistic?
The book was iCon and it was removed from the Apple Store as someone already chimed in on that. But thanks for being all righteous without the correct facts.
I can see how "the Bank Job" fits in. I never knew Steve robbed s bank.
Of course if Apple did remove all Jobs books, you'd be accusing them of censorship.
As mentioned by other people here, Apple does make enough profit and is regularly mentioned in labor issues in China... so no smoke without fire. And $79 for a USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter is certainly opportunistic on Apples part! So Tim Cook should not judge without first viewing the evidence first hand.
Please. Apple has supplier reports that show otherwise. It's practical the only company that works to improve workers conditions/pay in China. It's also one of the few companies that audit its supply chain in China. So Sorkin was spreading lies he can't prove and have been disproven.
As for the adapter, I wasn't aware it was based on a once living person.
Of course if Apple did remove all Jobs books, you'd be accusing them of censorship.
I'm not criticizing Apple for selling these popular books and films. I am illustrating the fact that they are prominently featuring books and films about Jobs that Cook has criticized and accused of being opportunistic. Bit of hypocrisy, don't you think?
And yes, I would accuse them of censorship if they removed them. The day that Apple starts blocking popular books and films they disagree with is the day I close my iTunes account.
If Cook reads a book or watches a film about Jobs that he feels is inaccurate, then he should by all means call them out on the fact and cite specific details and offer corrections. But it's a different story when he lashes out against a film he hasn't even seen yet, and then labels its producers as "opportunistic" when said film will no doubt be featured in iTunes eventually.
That's OK. Millions of people will. I will see it as well.
I'll catch it on Red Box. It has to be a Lord of the Rings caliber movie for me to pay box office prices. It is too bad it was based on Walter isaacsons horrible book.
Regardless of either of their comments there's no denying that Apple and other huge comapnies have exploited cheap labor overseas to make hundreds of billions in profits while screwing over the American workforce.
There's zero patriotism in that.
cook and others have sad the reason they assemble in Asia is because that's where the components are.
But, heck, while 'the folks' are fighting, I think I'll go see the movie, and, you know, make up my own mind.
it's not a question of how good a movie it is. if you pay money for it, you've already sided with the opportunists, regardless of whether you enjoyed the entertainment.
Why? First,the film's had universally great reviews. Second, Sorkin is absolutely right. Cook was talking out of his ass to criticize a movie he (and most people) have't even seen yet, and calling its makers opportunistic is both insulting and hypocritical.
First, Cook did not criticize Sorkin's movie. He was asked a general question about all the Jobs movies coming out. He said a lot of people are being opportunistic without singling out Sorkin's movie. He didn't attack the quality of the movie, but is defending the reputation of his friend who now longer can defend himself. It is no secret of Cook's dislike for the book the movie is based on. Perhaps Cook was being insulting in a generalized way, but hardly hypocritical. I haven't seen cook make a movie about Jobs or anybody else for that matter. That is what it would take for him to be hypocritical.
Second, there's nothing wrong with Sorkin defending his movie, but making false allegations about Apple's manufacturing practices is not only insulting, but is a false.
If Cook reads a book or watches a film about Jobs that he feels is inaccurate, then he should by all means call them out on the fact and cite specific details and offer corrections. But it's a different story when he lashes out against a film he hasn't even seen yet, and then labels its producers as "opportunistic" when said film will no doubt be featured in iTunes eventually.
Read Cook's quote he was asked about all the Jobs movies coming out, not Sorkin's movie specifically. The Sorkin movie is based on Walter Isaacsons book, which it is no secret most Apple personal have spoke negatively about, including Cook, after reading it.
Comments
"Nobody did this movie to get rich," Sorkin said. "Secondly, Tim Cook should really see the movie before he decides what it is."
Sorkin reserved his most piercing barb for last, "Third, if you've got a factory full of children in China assembling phones for 17 cents an hour you've got a lot of nerve calling someone else opportunistic."
Don't defend your movie, Sorkin. Attack Tim Cook some more. Stay classy, Sorkin.
His rant doesn't answer the question of WHY they did this movie. If not for "getting rich" then what? Did they do it "for Steve"? For his family? For a charity? For art? Are the filmmakers donating the profits from this movie to help Chinese factory slaves?
"I haven’t seen them. But the Steve I knew was an amazing human being. He’s someone who you wanted to do your best work [for]. He invented things that I think other people could not, he saw things that other people could not. He had this uncanny ability to see around the corner, and to describe a future—not an evolutionary future, but a revolutionary future. He was a joy to work with and I love him dearly. I miss him everyday. I think a lot of people are trying to be opportunistic, and I hate this. It’s not a great part of our world."
Definitely not seeing this movie now (wasn't planning on seeing it anyway).
Why? First,the film's had universally great reviews. Second, Sorkin is absolutely right. Cook was talking out of his ass to criticize a movie he (and most people) have't even seen yet, and calling its makers opportunistic is both insulting and hypocritical.
Your investors expect to make money off of this film, Sorkin. With a purported $30 million budget you're damn right people are expecting to capitalize on it and expect you to do the most as a writer/creator with this opportunity, you opportunist.
That's beside the point. The screenwriter, director, and key actors all reportedly worked for less than their usual pay to get the film made. Remember that they went through a couple of directors and several lead actors before finalizing the cast. Also, what's wrong with making money on a film? Since when is Apple a non-profit?
On the other hand, I don't agree that child labor should be automatically a disqualifier for Chinese companies. So long as they can prove that the kids are not being forced to work there, factory work is the only means to a fast way out of crushing poverty for much of the Chinese population.
Wow, you are really on the fringes of right-wing ideology, aren't you?
"Nobody made this film to get rich!" - Aaron Sorkin
Sorkin was paid two million to draft this film plus will receive three million in deferred.
Non-opportunist, my ass.
And Tim Cook makes over $9 million a year in salary, and has around a half billion dollars in Apple stock options.
We'll see. I seem to recall the iBookstore not selling a book that was unflattering to Jobs.
As you can see, Tim Cook apparently has no qualms about prominently featuring the books and films he's criticized on Apple's book and movie stores... Who's being opportunistic?
iBooks
iTunes Movies
Dear Mr. Sorkin.
You make cartoons.
Aaron Sorkin Awards
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0815070/awards
Oscar
The Social Network (2010)
Golden Globe
The Social Network (2010)
Primetime Emmy
The West Wing (1999)
Primetime Emmy
The West Wing (1999)
The West Wing Documentary Special (2002)
Primetime Emmy
The West Wing (1999)
Primetime Emmy
The West Wing (1999)
The West Wing (1999)
BAFTA Film Award
The Social Network (2010)
EDA Award
Moneyball (2011)
EDA Award
The Social Network (2010)
WGA Award (TV)
The Newsroom (2012)
As mentioned by other people here, Apple does make enough profit and is regularly mentioned in labor issues in China... so no smoke without fire. And $79 for a USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter is certainly opportunistic on Apples part! So Tim Cook should not judge without first viewing the evidence first hand.
The book was iCon and it was removed from the Apple Store as someone already chimed in on that. But thanks for being all righteous without the correct facts.
I can see how "the Bank Job" fits in. I never knew Steve robbed s bank.
Of course if Apple did remove all Jobs books, you'd be accusing them of censorship.
Please. Apple has supplier reports that show otherwise. It's practical the only company that works to improve workers conditions/pay in China. It's also one of the few companies that audit its supply chain in China. So Sorkin was spreading lies he can't prove and have been disproven.
As for the adapter, I wasn't aware it was based on a once living person.
Of course if Apple did remove all Jobs books, you'd be accusing them of censorship.
I'm not criticizing Apple for selling these popular books and films. I am illustrating the fact that they are prominently featuring books and films about Jobs that Cook has criticized and accused of being opportunistic. Bit of hypocrisy, don't you think?
And yes, I would accuse them of censorship if they removed them. The day that Apple starts blocking popular books and films they disagree with is the day I close my iTunes account.
If Cook reads a book or watches a film about Jobs that he feels is inaccurate, then he should by all means call them out on the fact and cite specific details and offer corrections. But it's a different story when he lashes out against a film he hasn't even seen yet, and then labels its producers as "opportunistic" when said film will no doubt be featured in iTunes eventually.
I'll catch it on Red Box. It has to be a Lord of the Rings caliber movie for me to pay box office prices. It is too bad it was based on Walter isaacsons horrible book.
cook and others have sad the reason they assemble in Asia is because that's where the components are.
it's not a question of how good a movie it is. if you pay money for it, you've already sided with the opportunists, regardless of whether you enjoyed the entertainment.
which has nothing to do with being an opportunist regarding a dead man.
First, Cook did not criticize Sorkin's movie. He was asked a general question about all the Jobs movies coming out. He said a lot of people are being opportunistic without singling out Sorkin's movie. He didn't attack the quality of the movie, but is defending the reputation of his friend who now longer can defend himself. It is no secret of Cook's dislike for the book the movie is based on. Perhaps Cook was being insulting in a generalized way, but hardly hypocritical. I haven't seen cook make a movie about Jobs or anybody else for that matter. That is what it would take for him to be hypocritical.
Second, there's nothing wrong with Sorkin defending his movie, but making false allegations about Apple's manufacturing practices is not only insulting, but is a false.
and? his income doesn't have any good to do with whether or not it's opportunistic to make a film about a dead guy's reputation.
Read Cook's quote he was asked about all the Jobs movies coming out, not Sorkin's movie specifically. The Sorkin movie is based on Walter Isaacsons book, which it is no secret most Apple personal have spoke negatively about, including Cook, after reading it.