Isaacson's book wasn't structured that way but adapting a book to a screenplay requires dramatic licence. That's my assumption.
It couldn't have been if it was a biography of his life, but it did contain, within it, the stories about those three product announcements on the day of their launch? My guess is they didn't, which means the only thing Sorkin could have directly used were aspects about Lisa, Woz, and other people in his life that will be folded into those major announcements.
Are you saying this movie is based on Isaacson's book?
Sony optioned the rights to Isaacson's book and then hired Sorkin to write a script. Sorkin took bits and pieces of the biography and used it to frame a structure for the film. Isaacson was in attendance at Saturday's Q&A to promote the film. (He also, mistakenly, referred to Seth Rogen by another name at one point, I think maybe Josh).
Sony optioned the rights to Isaacson's book and then hired Sorkin to write a script. Sorkin took bits and pieces of the biography and used it to frame a structure for the film. Isaacson was in attendance at Saturday's Q&A to promote the film. (He also, mistakenly, referred to Seth Rogen by another name at one point, I think maybe Josh).
Thanks for the details. It'll be interesting to see what was taken from Isaacson's book for the film, especially considering how negatively that authorized biography seemed to be revived by people on this forum. It'll be like an iFixit teardown for a biography and quasi-biopic.
Thanks for the details. It'll be interesting to see what was taken from Isaacson's book for the film, especially considering how negatively that authorized biography seemed to be revived by people on this forum. It'll be like an iFixit teardown for a biography and quasi-biopic.
There's a story Jobs told Isaacson in the biography about Joni Mitchell's song "Both Sides Now," which she recorded twice, in two very different ways, at different stages in her life. Jobs was using it to talk about how people age differently and change in different ways over time. Sorkin uses that small piece from the book and turns it into a tender moment between Jobs and Lisa. Obviously entirely fictionalized, but intended as a way to get across to the audience how Jobs felt. That's how Sorkin "adapted" the book, so to speak.
So you'd be OK with a film that was sanctioned and paid for by Apple, that approved everything with Apple, and that only said the nice things about Steve Jobs? That sounds considerably more exploitive than a film that is attempting to embody Steve Jobs in a 2 hour timespan.
And? That also means you're against the movie Lincoln or Amistad because none of the many actual people that existed are alive to tell their side of the story and their desendants may not like it. Really?! Did you take the same umbrage with the movie Tombstone, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Apollo 13, Hotel Rwanda, Erin Brockovich, or any of the countless amazing films that were made about real life people, none of which are the "absolute truth."
That's quite a statement. You make comments about not knowing Steve Jobs and comments about putting myself "in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates," and yet you don't do the same for Woz of Gates where you make an absolute statement about these real — and still living, my I remind you — people for whom I assume you have no spoken to about the film. Has Bill Gates even seen the movie at this point?
You also claim "millions of others around the world" won't know what Steve Jobs meant by "great products" and "good taste". Because of this movie? How so? From the trailer it sure does look like Fassbender as Jobs is very focused on changing the world with these product announcements. I'd argue that's what makes Sorkin three-act structure about the minutes right before the aforementioned product announcements such a brilliant way to show you that side of the man. His focus. His drive. His obsessive concern for making something great right down to the finest detail; which is the opposite of what you propose this film will do.
No, I'm not talking about a sanitized, approved version, since I think a fuller portrait would need the destructive Yang to explain the creative Yin, just as in real life. Or vice versa.
Your other examples of dramatic bios are irrelevant. The timing is what sets this one out of bounds. We have not even begun to see the milieu from which Jobs emerged, how it shaped his vision, and how his vision took him to the top of the wave that he rode and which we're still riding. This movie and Gibney's make it harder in this near term to begin an understanding.
As an example: I may be wrong about this partucular aspect of the movie, we shall see, but I don't think it goes into how Jobs found the meaning of the human project by his use of psychedelics. We are shaped by our tools, and we're shaped for better purposes by better tools, and damaged by clumsy tools. Isaacson, to his credit, mentions and quotes Jobs on how important LSD was to him (a few more times that the sketchy index indicates), Markoff's "Dormouse" book better tells the cultural story around the PC revolution at the time. Absolutely essential stuff, at the core of Jobs's aesthetic-revolutionary vision, which will now have a harder slog of it now that the two "definitive" bullshit Steve Jobs movies have been made.
I'm at the end of my speculative rope now, until I get to see this biotelenovela. You're right about Bill Gates. I have no idea, really, how he'll feel about it, if he even wants to see it. Woz, though, is already on record, I believe.
Edit: NHughs, if you're still there and can enlighten, thanks in advance.
You are right about the ddeails, but I "have a problem with this" because I don't think the life or some slices of the life of Steve Jobs are fit subjects for the entertainment of the Apple hating, Steve Jobs hating, corporation hating masses, not to mention the Apple and Jobs worshipping masses. It's exploitation. The movie shouldn't have even been considered, but this is a crass, exploitative culture that will stick cameras in your toddlers' faces if you're famous and the pics can be sold. The media beast must be fed, and Hollywood will dive into the dumpsters of your trash company if necessary.
Steve isn't around to tell his side of the story. Put yourself in the place of his wife, his sons, his good friends and associates. "Opportunistic" is being restrained in describing this movie.
I start from the premise that entertainment is not a higher value than understanding. You can call that pedantic, but I say with the last two Jobs movies we are further away from understanding the change that the portable computer as an art form has effected right before our unseeing eyes. Bill Gates and Woz will love this movie and they'll still not know what Steve meant by "great products" and "good taste." Neither will millions of others around the world.
Emphasis added by me.
So your argument is that the filmmaker hasn't chosen to make the statement you would like made? Then go make your own movie and tell your version of the story.
There are infinite variations of Steve's story that could be told.
I'll be happy to see a different perspective on the story than I read daily in the nerd blogosphere.
This movie and Gibney's make it harder in this near term to begin an understanding..
You're saying we shouldn't have a movie that tries to detail, in an entertaining format, how the minutes before the original Macintosh announcement may have gone down because not enough has passed to understand what that means. Come on! :no:
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.
Everyone of these films tries to make Steve Wozniak the unsong cultural hero of Apple, when he was an afterthought the moment the Macintosh was born. He's been an afterthought ever since.
There's a story Jobs told Isaacson in the biography about Joni Mitchell's song "Both Sides Now," which she recorded twice, in two very different ways, at different stages in her life.
I realize that Joni Mitchell's (I am a huge fan, btw) version of it is well-known, but to give credit when it's due, the song was originally written and performed by Judy Collins (in the '60s).
[quote name="SolipsismY" url="/t/188655/review-steve-jobs-an-electric-depiction-of-apples-enigmatic-founder/80#post_2785789"] And? That also means you're against the movie [I]Lincoln[/I] or [I]Amistad[/I] because none of the many actual people that existed are alive to tell their side of the story and their desendants may not like it. Really?! Did you take the same umbrage with the movie [I]Tombstone, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Apollo 13, Hotel Rwanda, Erin Brockovich[/I], or any of the countless amazing films that were made about real life people, none of which are the "absolute truth." [/Quote]
I think the main difference between the films you've mentioned, and many that you haven't is the calming influence of time in regards to this film.
I can certainly imagine an uproar on one or both sides if a film was made for entertainment value only a short period after the Lincoln assassination, or Kennedy's... or an absolute horror to imagine if something happened to Obama. You might ask why I chose such violent topics, but I personally believe we are in a sort of war to support many of the traits of SJ that were good, and should be defended so that regardless of his personal character flaws, we will experience products again with his beliefs at their core (as it were).
I'm not so sure I would go so far as to call the film "exploitation", but I can agree with most of [@]Flaneur[/@]'s argument that it may have been too soon for a movie about Jobs in this style of fictional dramatic entertainment. We still don't know or collectively understand his achievements, nor appreciate what his vision, drive, along with his egotistcal hubris and grating character flaws... have truly given us. It's because of that lack of respect and appreciation, that it's quite difficult to be entertained if you're exposed to even the small flaws, because you just know the non-thinkers among the population that take all of this great tech and vision for granted, will only point to his dissappointments as a person and project them against users of his products.
Not too hard to see the above happening, since we do and have experienced this in almost every single thread in these forums since SJ's death. Also your comment, "If Steve Jobs was alive this wouldn't have happened" wouldn't have been so poignantly... yet comically in a dark ironic humorous way... sadly too true.
No, I'm not talking about a sanitized, approved version, since I think a fuller portrait would need the destructive Yang to explain the creative Yin, just as in real life. Or vice versa.
Your other examples of dramatic bios are irrelevant. The timing is what sets this one out of bounds. We have not even begun to see the milieu from which Jobs emerged, how it shaped his vision, and how his vision took him to the top of the wave that he rode and which we're still riding. This movie and Gibney's make it harder in this near term to begin an understanding.
As an example: I may be wrong about this partucular aspect of the movie, we shall see, but I don't think it goes into how Jobs found the meaning of the human project by his use of psychedelics. We are shaped by our tools, and we're shaped for better purposes by better tools, and damaged by clumsy tools. Isaacson, to his credit, mentions and quotes Jobs on how important LSD was to him (a few more times that the sketchy index indicates), Markoff's "Dormouse" book better tells the cultural story around the PC revolution at the time. Absolutely essential stuff, at the core of Jobs's aesthetic-revolutionary vision, which will now have a harder slog of it now that the two "definitive" bullshit Steve Jobs movies have been made.
I'm at the end of my speculative rope now, until I get to see this biotelenovela. You're right about Bill Gates. I have no idea, really, how he'll feel about it, if he even wants to see it. Woz, though, is already on record, I believe.
Edit: NHughs, if you're still there and can enlighten, thanks in advance.
Oh yes! How could I be so arrogant to think I needed to pick up your debate for you. Carry on... GREAT stuff! :smokey:
You're saying we shouldn't have a movie that tries to detail, in an entertaining format, how the minutes before the original Macintosh announcement may have gone down because not enough has passed to understand what that means. Come on! :no:
Yep, I would say that. Neil Postman was saying something similar back in the 80s in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Apple's doing pretty well, because the products speak well for themselves, but there's a huge chunk of geek mindshare out there that doesn't get what Apple's about, and every Steve-as-jerk treatment just drives them further into a subversive hatred.
We should take this seriously. The same kind of backwardness destroyed Detroit in the face of better product strategies of German and Japanese companies starting in the 60s. That's one reason why this stuff is so irritating.
As a culture, our obsession with entertainment in these dangerous times is fiddling while Rome burns on a mass scale. Tim was right. The movie illustrates an unfortunate part of our culture.
You make an interesting point about a method for a verifiable historical record.
I will only just point out that with the technology available these days, unfortunately that is seems pretty much impossible. Video and photographic evidence can be manipulated to deceive. It's gotten good enough that people have a very difficult time separating fact from fiction.
Was the picture photoshopped? Was the video shot on a green screen? It's getting awfully hard to tell the difference anymore.
I am sure there is a technical solution of some sort, but hopefully you understand where I am going with my point.
You seem to have missed the point that I was making. The point that I was making is that it is impossible. I made a further point--even it it were possible to record a complete video record, it would not make much difference. That is because it is not also what is recorded; but also it is was is perceived. Any two people who view the complete record would filter what they see though their own life and cultural experiences and draw often diametrically opposing conclusions from what they see.
I think the main difference between the films you've mentioned, and many that you haven't is the calming influence of time in regards to this film.
OK, let's use The Theory of Everything, Patch Adams, The Blindside, Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, Moneyball and Pain & Gain as examples, as most of those people were still alive at the time, or not very long decreased.
And what's wrong with the forementioned Erin Brockovich and Hotel Rwanda examples? Did you or anyone else here take a vocal stand against any of those stories because not enough time had passed to allow a "calming effect" to happen? What was calming about the Holocaust depictions in Schinder's List? Was 12 Years a Slave shelved by Hollywood until the arocisties of slavery were no longer an issue? Of course not; on every count. The only reason here to hate Steve Jobs for existing is an emotional one, not rational.
As a culture, our obsession with entertainment in these dangerous times is fiddling while Rome burns on a mass scale. Tim was right. The movie illustrates an unfortunate part of our culture.
Up until this point all your anti-Steve Jobs comments have squarely fallen on this film, not on "entertainment" as some pervasive evil that will bring down the US/World/humanity(?) in your Rome example. If you feel this film is so awful then why are you on this thread, and why didn't you respond to the other comments I made about films? Plus, I can't recall you ever talking about any other entertainment, of which Apple is balls deep, which you can thank—in no small part—its founder, Steve Jobs, who also founded NeXT which the web browser was bourn, and bought Pixar from Lucas, and then sold to Disney all while crating the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes Store, App Store. You can't at the same time disparage entertainment as the folly of man while at the same time claiming Jobs was above it all.
Why so much emotion and hypocrisy over a movie? It's a fuçking movie; can we remember that?
There's a story Jobs told Isaacson in the biography about Joni Mitchell's song "Both Sides Now," which she recorded twice, in two very different ways, at different stages in her life.
I realize that Joni Mitchell's (I am a huge fan, btw) version of it is well-known, but to give credit when it's due, the song was originally written and performed by Judy Collins (in the '60s).
Wow. Slams the best of all the documentaries by Ken Burns. (having to do with American music) And now doesn't even know who wrote "Both Sides Now".
Keep your day job. (hope it doesn't have anything to do with music or American history)
I realize that Joni Mitchell's (I am a huge fan, btw) version of it is well-known, but to give credit when it's due, the song was originally written and performed by Judy Collins (in the '60s).
Joni Mitchell actually wrote the song, though Judy Collins was the first to record it commercially.
Up until this point all your anti-Steve Jobs comments have squarely fallen on this film, not on "entertainment" as some pervasive evil that will bring down the US/World/humanity(?) in your Rome example. If you feel this film is so awful then why are you on this thread, and why didn't you respond to the other comments I made about films? Plus, I can't recall you ever talking about any other entertainment, of which Apple is balls deep, which you can thank—in no small part—its founder, Steve Jobs, who also founded NeXT which the web browser was bourn, and bought Pixar from Lucas, and then sold to Disney all while crating the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes Store, App Store. You can't at the same time disparage entertainment as the folly of man while at the same time claiming Jobs was above it all.
Why so much emotion and hypocrisy over a movie? It's a fuçking movie; can we remember that?
The Pixel Doc's point about time was a dimensional enlargement of the point. We wouldn't see the likes of Schindler's List without enough calming years to go by for us to regain some sanity about the Nazis as human beings rather than cardboard caricatures. Not a bad movie, I'm told, because it was not done as exploitation, i.e., entertainment. (I don't see many fictional movies myself, including biopics; the last one was probably Gandhi, if you can believe that. So that's the kind of contrarian outlier you're dealing with here.)
It's you and others here who've been insisting on the value of this film as entertainment. I'm just saying that our recently departed revolutionary genius is not a fit subject for drama or for Gibney's muckraking because you are going to miss the point of the revolution we're in, or you're going to mislead millions into believing that Jobs was just a great salesman, etc., who has fooled a bunch of iSheep into flocking to his cult, etc., etc.
Jobs has changed the world as much as anyone since Gutenberg, and we need to know how he did that, where the genesis was, how it's going to reorder our senses and the mind of the world, and so on. This silly drama stuff (so I suppose, we'll see) is going to chew through people's appetite for something more sober and closer to the "truth," which is always a shifting target, but one that's beyond docudrama, I'll wager.
Yes, Apple trades in entertainment made by others, but i'd be very surprised if they ever make a deal like Sony did with this picture.
—In the trailer, you hear Jobs (or somone) talking about a "tectonic" shift, supposedly some dialogue from the 80s. Gross anachonism, in my opinion. Nobody was blending metaphors like that in the 80s. Language, Sorkin's stock in trade, is a base currency to be spent wherever one needs effect.
Of course they spoke like that in the 80s. Metaphors were more widely used back then compared. Tectonic plates, and their shifting was frequently in the news during that decade.
Comments
It couldn't have been if it was a biography of his life, but it did contain, within it, the stories about those three product announcements on the day of their launch? My guess is they didn't, which means the only thing Sorkin could have directly used were aspects about Lisa, Woz, and other people in his life that will be folded into those major announcements.
Are you saying this movie is based on Isaacson's book?
Sony optioned the rights to Isaacson's book and then hired Sorkin to write a script. Sorkin took bits and pieces of the biography and used it to frame a structure for the film. Isaacson was in attendance at Saturday's Q&A to promote the film. (He also, mistakenly, referred to Seth Rogen by another name at one point, I think maybe Josh).
Thanks for the details. It'll be interesting to see what was taken from Isaacson's book for the film, especially considering how negatively that authorized biography seemed to be revived by people on this forum. It'll be like an iFixit teardown for a biography and quasi-biopic.
Thanks for the details. It'll be interesting to see what was taken from Isaacson's book for the film, especially considering how negatively that authorized biography seemed to be revived by people on this forum. It'll be like an iFixit teardown for a biography and quasi-biopic.
There's a story Jobs told Isaacson in the biography about Joni Mitchell's song "Both Sides Now," which she recorded twice, in two very different ways, at different stages in her life. Jobs was using it to talk about how people age differently and change in different ways over time. Sorkin uses that small piece from the book and turns it into a tender moment between Jobs and Lisa. Obviously entirely fictionalized, but intended as a way to get across to the audience how Jobs felt. That's how Sorkin "adapted" the book, so to speak.
No, I'm not talking about a sanitized, approved version, since I think a fuller portrait would need the destructive Yang to explain the creative Yin, just as in real life. Or vice versa.
Your other examples of dramatic bios are irrelevant. The timing is what sets this one out of bounds. We have not even begun to see the milieu from which Jobs emerged, how it shaped his vision, and how his vision took him to the top of the wave that he rode and which we're still riding. This movie and Gibney's make it harder in this near term to begin an understanding.
As an example: I may be wrong about this partucular aspect of the movie, we shall see, but I don't think it goes into how Jobs found the meaning of the human project by his use of psychedelics. We are shaped by our tools, and we're shaped for better purposes by better tools, and damaged by clumsy tools. Isaacson, to his credit, mentions and quotes Jobs on how important LSD was to him (a few more times that the sketchy index indicates), Markoff's "Dormouse" book better tells the cultural story around the PC revolution at the time. Absolutely essential stuff, at the core of Jobs's aesthetic-revolutionary vision, which will now have a harder slog of it now that the two "definitive" bullshit Steve Jobs movies have been made.
I'm at the end of my speculative rope now, until I get to see this biotelenovela. You're right about Bill Gates. I have no idea, really, how he'll feel about it, if he even wants to see it. Woz, though, is already on record, I believe.
Edit: NHughs, if you're still there and can enlighten, thanks in advance.
Emphasis added by me.
So your argument is that the filmmaker hasn't chosen to make the statement you would like made? Then go make your own movie and tell your version of the story.
There are infinite variations of Steve's story that could be told.
I'll be happy to see a different perspective on the story than I read daily in the nerd blogosphere.
You're saying we shouldn't have a movie that tries to detail, in an entertaining format, how the minutes before the original Macintosh announcement may have gone down because not enough has passed to understand what that means. Come on! :no:
Everyone of these films tries to make Steve Wozniak the unsong cultural hero of Apple, when he was an afterthought the moment the Macintosh was born. He's been an afterthought ever since.
I realize that Joni Mitchell's (I am a huge fan, btw) version of it is well-known, but to give credit when it's due, the song was originally written and performed by Judy Collins (in the '60s).
And? That also means you're against the movie [I]Lincoln[/I] or [I]Amistad[/I] because none of the many actual people that existed are alive to tell their side of the story and their desendants may not like it. Really?! Did you take the same umbrage with the movie [I]Tombstone, Schindler's List, Goodfellas, Apollo 13, Hotel Rwanda, Erin Brockovich[/I], or any of the countless amazing films that were made about real life people, none of which are the "absolute truth." [/Quote]
I think the main difference between the films you've mentioned, and many that you haven't is the calming influence of time in regards to this film.
I can certainly imagine an uproar on one or both sides if a film was made for entertainment value only a short period after the Lincoln assassination, or Kennedy's... or an absolute horror to imagine if something happened to Obama. You might ask why I chose such violent topics, but I personally believe we are in a sort of war to support many of the traits of SJ that were good, and should be defended so that regardless of his personal character flaws, we will experience products again with his beliefs at their core (as it were).
I'm not so sure I would go so far as to call the film "exploitation", but I can agree with most of [@]Flaneur[/@]'s argument that it may have been too soon for a movie about Jobs in this style of fictional dramatic entertainment. We still don't know or collectively understand his achievements, nor appreciate what his vision, drive, along with his egotistcal hubris and grating character flaws... have truly given us. It's because of that lack of respect and appreciation, that it's quite difficult to be entertained if you're exposed to even the small flaws, because you just know the non-thinkers among the population that take all of this great tech and vision for granted, will only point to his dissappointments as a person and project them against users of his products.
Not too hard to see the above happening, since we do and have experienced this in almost every single thread in these forums since SJ's death. Also your comment, "If Steve Jobs was alive this wouldn't have happened" wouldn't have been so poignantly... yet comically in a dark ironic humorous way... sadly too true.
Oh yes! How could I be so arrogant to think I needed to pick up your debate for you. Carry on... GREAT stuff! :smokey:
Yep, I would say that. Neil Postman was saying something similar back in the 80s in Amusing Ourselves to Death.
Apple's doing pretty well, because the products speak well for themselves, but there's a huge chunk of geek mindshare out there that doesn't get what Apple's about, and every Steve-as-jerk treatment just drives them further into a subversive hatred.
We should take this seriously. The same kind of backwardness destroyed Detroit in the face of better product strategies of German and Japanese companies starting in the 60s. That's one reason why this stuff is so irritating.
As a culture, our obsession with entertainment in these dangerous times is fiddling while Rome burns on a mass scale. Tim was right. The movie illustrates an unfortunate part of our culture.
No, I believe that the director and cast will introduce the film though.
Nice. I wish I could be there.
You seem to have missed the point that I was making. The point that I was making is that it is impossible. I made a further point--even it it were possible to record a complete video record, it would not make much difference. That is because it is not also what is recorded; but also it is was is perceived. Any two people who view the complete record would filter what they see though their own life and cultural experiences and draw often diametrically opposing conclusions from what they see.
OK, let's use The Theory of Everything, Patch Adams, The Blindside, Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story, Moneyball and Pain & Gain as examples, as most of those people were still alive at the time, or not very long decreased.
And what's wrong with the forementioned Erin Brockovich and Hotel Rwanda examples? Did you or anyone else here take a vocal stand against any of those stories because not enough time had passed to allow a "calming effect" to happen? What was calming about the Holocaust depictions in Schinder's List? Was 12 Years a Slave shelved by Hollywood until the arocisties of slavery were no longer an issue? Of course not; on every count. The only reason here to hate Steve Jobs for existing is an emotional one, not rational.
Up until this point all your anti-Steve Jobs comments have squarely fallen on this film, not on "entertainment" as some pervasive evil that will bring down the US/World/humanity(?) in your Rome example. If you feel this film is so awful then why are you on this thread, and why didn't you respond to the other comments I made about films? Plus, I can't recall you ever talking about any other entertainment, of which Apple is balls deep, which you can thank—in no small part—its founder, Steve Jobs, who also founded NeXT which the web browser was bourn, and bought Pixar from Lucas, and then sold to Disney all while crating the iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes Store, App Store. You can't at the same time disparage entertainment as the folly of man while at the same time claiming Jobs was above it all.
Why so much emotion and hypocrisy over a movie? It's a fuçking movie; can we remember that?
There's a story Jobs told Isaacson in the biography about Joni Mitchell's song "Both Sides Now," which she recorded twice, in two very different ways, at different stages in her life.
I realize that Joni Mitchell's (I am a huge fan, btw) version of it is well-known, but to give credit when it's due, the song was originally written and performed by Judy Collins (in the '60s).
Wow. Slams the best of all the documentaries by Ken Burns. (having to do with American music) And now doesn't even know who wrote "Both Sides Now".
Keep your day job. (hope it doesn't have anything to do with music or American history)
Joni Mitchell actually wrote the song, though Judy Collins was the first to record it commercially.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Both_Sides,_Now
The Pixel Doc's point about time was a dimensional enlargement of the point. We wouldn't see the likes of Schindler's List without enough calming years to go by for us to regain some sanity about the Nazis as human beings rather than cardboard caricatures. Not a bad movie, I'm told, because it was not done as exploitation, i.e., entertainment. (I don't see many fictional movies myself, including biopics; the last one was probably Gandhi, if you can believe that. So that's the kind of contrarian outlier you're dealing with here.)
It's you and others here who've been insisting on the value of this film as entertainment. I'm just saying that our recently departed revolutionary genius is not a fit subject for drama or for Gibney's muckraking because you are going to miss the point of the revolution we're in, or you're going to mislead millions into believing that Jobs was just a great salesman, etc., who has fooled a bunch of iSheep into flocking to his cult, etc., etc.
Jobs has changed the world as much as anyone since Gutenberg, and we need to know how he did that, where the genesis was, how it's going to reorder our senses and the mind of the world, and so on. This silly drama stuff (so I suppose, we'll see) is going to chew through people's appetite for something more sober and closer to the "truth," which is always a shifting target, but one that's beyond docudrama, I'll wager.
Yes, Apple trades in entertainment made by others, but i'd be very surprised if they ever make a deal like Sony did with this picture.
Of course they spoke like that in the 80s. Metaphors were more widely used back then compared. Tectonic plates, and their shifting was frequently in the news during that decade.