1) Why does Apple need to be involved when we're talking about publicly available information about the essence of a man, wrapped inside a three-part film of fictionalized behind-the-sceens dramatizations right before three major unveilings in his life? This is the best idea I've heard to capture Steve as a person in terms of flaws, focus, inspiration, vision, and his growth.
2) You want a story about Jobs after he gave Apple a monopoly on mindshare? You think that would be enjoyable since we all already know about Steve Jobs during those years. How about we wait a generations or two before we have a movie about Steve Jobs in 2010. unveiling the iPad.
What have you seen about this film that can be defined a ridiculous distortion? From the trailers and my long history of what I've read it all seems to fit with how I'd describe the man.
How much do we really know about Steve Jobs after he came back to Apple? All we really know is the guy that got up on stage and masterfully sold us stuff time and time again. Honestly I think it's probably too early to have movies on Steve. It hasn't even been years since his death, why do people feel the need to rush out movies on him?
". . . contains painful truths." How about "contains ridiculous dramatic distortions"?
The problem is that people will go to this movie and come out thinking they understand Steve Jobs, when in truth they'll be getting a mythological caricature. They will be further from the truth. I would think that would be the painful part for Tim Cook or others in the company.
Or maybe there is no "truth", what you think you know is already miles from the truth (which is highly probable).
Even Cook only knew Jobs during the last part of this film. Most people that were around him in 2011, weren't there for the first two chapters. And many who were there for the first, weren't around for the last. Everybody's got a skewed view. And that's only people who actually met him. For everyone else, I'm betting were not that close to knowing anything... And so what? We were not his friends.
When fiction becomes fact, print the fiction... Why? Because nobody really going to believe the truth anyway whatever it is...
How much do we really know about Steve Jobs after he came back to Apple? All we really know is the guy that got up on stage and masterfully sold us stuff time and time again. Honestly I think it's probably too early to have movies on Steve. It hasn't even been years since his death, why do people feel the need to rush out movies on him?
Really? That's all you know and, subsequently, have projected your admitted ignorance onto everyone else? You don't know anything about his widow, or house he had to fight to raze, or his battle pancreatic cancer, or his transplant, or his biological sister's novel being made into a well received Hollywood film, or his sale to Pixar to Disney, or the yacht that he had commissioned, or any of the countless other things not about product announcements that weren't the first 7 things that came to mind in an instant when you foolish stated. "All we really know is the guy […] sold us stuff." Maybe you need to start paying attention.
So those who trashed Sorkin earlier now going to come out and lovingly fawn over the movie?
Why? Why would I praise Sorkin now?
This article just confirmed my belief and Tim Cooks conclusion. The film is a big ball of Bullshit.
I mean seriously. If they are not going to base the film on fact why even bother? Why not just do a film about a fictional character based on Jobs instead of making a psuedo-biography that most of Jobs closes friends say is not based on fact at all.
My conclusion stands. You want to see a realistic portrail of Jobs based on fact? Don't watch this movie. If you want to be entertained by lies and half truths? Watch this film. Just as Cook said this whole thing smells opportunistic. They are using the Steve Jobs name to push a tall tale based on zero fact. Sucks that people use the name Steve Jobs to make films knowing his name alone will bring in some interest.
Let the man rest in peace. Or if you are going to make a movie at least have the decently to make it based on fact not some made up drama.
Because in "Steve Jobs," the iconic man behind the Mac, despite all of his genius, was still just a man.
All geniuses are "just men." When people think of geniuses as super-human figures, they're not doing themselves any favours. It prevents them from recognising such people when they actually meet them: "He can't be one, look he has a stomach! Everyone knows geniuses don't need to eat!" Also, perhaps worse (in terms of human achievement), it gives people an excuse not to do great things themselves (e.g. "I wasn't born that way").
But that doesn't mean it's ok to make a movie that focuses on those lesser aspects of the person. Because by definition a genius is someone who achieves great things, and precisely because the things are so great, any personal foibles are relatively small, to the point where it almost becomes dishonest to even mention them. It's like someone writes Macbeth and you make a 90 minute movie about the spelling mistake on page 362. How about we give these people the benefit of the doubt.
More relevant (important?) than Lincoln or Edison? Woah now, let's check back in a hundred or a hundred and fifty years.
Edison had his detractor even in his later years, as a kind of industrialist figurehead with a great flair for self-publicity, so I think by that measure Jobs had a bigger impact..
Lincoln was an extremely complex figure with complex motivations, his assassination kind of froze him in time.
Jobs' legacy depends on Apple'S future and where computing is going.
If Apple lasts as a major force for the next 20 years, the impact of his company on society will have been signiicantly greater than Edison.
". . . contains painful truths." How about "contains ridiculous dramatic distortions"?
The problem is that people will go to this movie and come out thinking they understand Steve Jobs, when in truth they'll be getting a mythological caricature. They will be further from the truth. I would think that would be the painful part for Tim Cook or others in the company.
Exactly. If this movie is seen by a wider audience, anyone that has followed and dug deeper into researching this man's life, will be left trying to defend their views about SJ vs. "pure fiction".
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie and even if I'm sure I'll find it entertaining, l'll also probably be perturbed about the stupid positions and fact projection that people will take based on this narrative alone.
I have zero interest in this movie. I hated the Social Network so I'm sure I would hate this too. Plus there was zero cooperation from anyone at Apple and little to no focus of Steve Jobs after he came back to Apple. We have way too many incomplete pictures of the man. Walter Isaacson's book didn't focus enough on the NeXT/Pixar years and most other books/movies focus very little on Steve once he came back to Apple. So you get a lot of Steve the asshole but not Steve the loving husband, father and friend.
I fully agree, because I believe those years were far more influential in the growth of the Apple we know today, than the Macintosh years. I would go so far as to say SJ was a completely different man when he came back from his hiatus.
I'm going to see the movie and try to get over the fact that the guy who plays SJ looks nothing like him. I'm sure it's an enjoyable film on a few levels.
I don't understand why a great director doesn't take the time to read a few books and do a little research on the web to extract the complexity of Jobs' personality and behavior.
I'd start with The Journey is the Reward and The Little Kingdom. Those early days were classic, mercurial Jobs. Story after story, the books are chock full of fascinating retellings and anecdotes, right when the computer industry started becoming relevant and taking off.
From there, they can talk to people at Apple and others to fill in the rest, much of which we've seen highlighted via keynotes and interviews.
At least it'd be a movie that had all the cool stories that we've all heard, read about and admired.
I'm preparing myself for the Woz/SJ argument over the latter not knowing how to design a computer, yet getting all the credit for creating the computer industry. Oh, and the Apple stole everything from Xerox anecdote.
Whoa. Hold on. People are missing the real headline here.
AppleInsider screened the movie? AppleInsider? And managed to get all these people on stage? What am I missing in what I thought I read?
That's exactly what I thought when I read the first paragraph. It distracted me so much I couldn't read the rest of the review until I'd worked out what they meant. If they had screened it then surely their name/logo would be on the screen in the photograph above, but I looked and it isn't there. Then I thought, how on earth could such a small company arrange this screening with all these A-Listers?
I came to the conclusion that it must be a poorly worded, as johnnyb0731 pointed out.
It would have been better written like this:
"AppleInsider had a chance to attend a press screening of the film in New York on Saturday..."
I haven't seen it yet, but I will say this unequivocally:
Any movie written by Aaron Sorkin and starring Michael Fassbender is a must see for me. They could make a movie about ... I don't, can't think of anything right now, but something completely boring and irrelevant. I'd be there. Sorkin's talent is off the charts. And the same goes for Fassbender. These guys are at the top of their professions for a very specific reason: They are amazing.
Comments
How much do we really know about Steve Jobs after he came back to Apple? All we really know is the guy that got up on stage and masterfully sold us stuff time and time again. Honestly I think it's probably too early to have movies on Steve. It hasn't even been years since his death, why do people feel the need to rush out movies on him?
". . . contains painful truths." How about "contains ridiculous dramatic distortions"?
The problem is that people will go to this movie and come out thinking they understand Steve Jobs, when in truth they'll be getting a mythological caricature. They will be further from the truth. I would think that would be the painful part for Tim Cook or others in the company.
Or maybe there is no "truth", what you think you know is already miles from the truth (which is highly probable).
Even Cook only knew Jobs during the last part of this film. Most people that were around him in 2011, weren't there for the first two chapters. And many who were there for the first, weren't around for the last. Everybody's got a skewed view. And that's only people who actually met him. For everyone else, I'm betting were not that close to knowing anything... And so what? We were not his friends.
When fiction becomes fact, print the fiction... Why? Because nobody really going to believe the truth anyway whatever it is...
Really? That's all you know and, subsequently, have projected your admitted ignorance onto everyone else? You don't know anything about his widow, or house he had to fight to raze, or his battle pancreatic cancer, or his transplant, or his biological sister's novel being made into a well received Hollywood film, or his sale to Pixar to Disney, or the yacht that he had commissioned, or any of the countless other things not about product announcements that weren't the first 7 things that came to mind in an instant when you foolish stated. "All we really know is the guy […] sold us stuff." Maybe you need to start paying attention.
So those who trashed Sorkin earlier now going to come out and lovingly fawn over the movie?
uh... doubt it. No. Not ever.
He's a historical figure like Lincoln or Edison except more relevant.
More relevant (important?) than Lincoln or Edison? Woah now, let's check back in a hundred or a hundred and fifty years.
So those who trashed Sorkin earlier now going to come out and lovingly fawn over the movie?
Why? Why would I praise Sorkin now?
This article just confirmed my belief and Tim Cooks conclusion. The film is a big ball of Bullshit.
I mean seriously. If they are not going to base the film on fact why even bother? Why not just do a film about a fictional character based on Jobs instead of making a psuedo-biography that most of Jobs closes friends say is not based on fact at all.
My conclusion stands. You want to see a realistic portrail of Jobs based on fact? Don't watch this movie. If you want to be entertained by lies and half truths? Watch this film. Just as Cook said this whole thing smells opportunistic. They are using the Steve Jobs name to push a tall tale based on zero fact. Sucks that people use the name Steve Jobs to make films knowing his name alone will bring in some interest.
Let the man rest in peace. Or if you are going to make a movie at least have the decently to make it based on fact not some made up drama.
Did you see "Finding Neverland"?
I just finished watching the 4 hr PBS documentary on Walt Disney.
The entire time, I couldn't stop seeing the parallels to Steve Jobs.
So those who trashed Sorkin earlier now going to come out and lovingly fawn over the movie?
AI only "likes" the movie because they think it will create controversy and generate page views.
Because in "Steve Jobs," the iconic man behind the Mac, despite all of his genius, was still just a man.
All geniuses are "just men." When people think of geniuses as super-human figures, they're not doing themselves any favours. It prevents them from recognising such people when they actually meet them: "He can't be one, look he has a stomach! Everyone knows geniuses don't need to eat!" Also, perhaps worse (in terms of human achievement), it gives people an excuse not to do great things themselves (e.g. "I wasn't born that way").
But that doesn't mean it's ok to make a movie that focuses on those lesser aspects of the person. Because by definition a genius is someone who achieves great things, and precisely because the things are so great, any personal foibles are relatively small, to the point where it almost becomes dishonest to even mention them. It's like someone writes Macbeth and you make a 90 minute movie about the spelling mistake on page 362. How about we give these people the benefit of the doubt.
More relevant (important?) than Lincoln or Edison? Woah now, let's check back in a hundred or a hundred and fifty years.
Edison had his detractor even in his later years, as a kind of industrialist figurehead with a great flair for self-publicity, so I think by that measure Jobs had a bigger impact..
Lincoln was an extremely complex figure with complex motivations, his assassination kind of froze him in time.
Jobs' legacy depends on Apple'S future and where computing is going.
If Apple lasts as a major force for the next 20 years, the impact of his company on society will have been signiicantly greater than Edison.
Exactly. If this movie is seen by a wider audience, anyone that has followed and dug deeper into researching this man's life, will be left trying to defend their views about SJ vs. "pure fiction".
I'm looking forward to seeing the movie and even if I'm sure I'll find it entertaining, l'll also probably be perturbed about the stupid positions and fact projection that people will take based on this narrative alone.
I fully agree, because I believe those years were far more influential in the growth of the Apple we know today, than the Macintosh years. I would go so far as to say SJ was a completely different man when he came back from his hiatus.
Picked up from Gruber's feed yesterday. Parallels of SJ? http://recode.net/2015/10/02/why-jack-dorsey-is-ready-to-save-twitter/
I'm going to see the movie and try to get over the fact that the guy who plays SJ looks nothing like him. I'm sure it's an enjoyable film on a few levels.
I don't understand why a great director doesn't take the time to read a few books and do a little research on the web to extract the complexity of Jobs' personality and behavior.
I'd start with The Journey is the Reward and The Little Kingdom. Those early days were classic, mercurial Jobs. Story after story, the books are chock full of fascinating retellings and anecdotes, right when the computer industry started becoming relevant and taking off.
From there, they can talk to people at Apple and others to fill in the rest, much of which we've seen highlighted via keynotes and interviews.
At least it'd be a movie that had all the cool stories that we've all heard, read about and admired.
I'm preparing myself for the Woz/SJ argument over the latter not knowing how to design a computer, yet getting all the credit for creating the computer industry. Oh, and the Apple stole everything from Xerox anecdote.
That's exactly what I thought when I read the first paragraph. It distracted me so much I couldn't read the rest of the review until I'd worked out what they meant. If they had screened it then surely their name/logo would be on the screen in the photograph above, but I looked and it isn't there. Then I thought, how on earth could such a small company arrange this screening with all these A-Listers?
I came to the conclusion that it must be a poorly worded, as johnnyb0731 pointed out.
It would have been better written like this:
"AppleInsider had a chance to attend a press screening of the film in New York on Saturday..."
I haven't seen it yet, but I will say this unequivocally:
Any movie written by Aaron Sorkin and starring Michael Fassbender is a must see for me. They could make a movie about ... I don't, can't think of anything right now, but something completely boring and irrelevant. I'd be there. Sorkin's talent is off the charts. And the same goes for Fassbender. These guys are at the top of their professions for a very specific reason: They are amazing.
If you believe that making movies is about that sort of thing then I feel sorry for you.