How do you do a movie about Steve Jobs and completely ignore the last 15 years of his life? This movie focuses on Steve's daughter Lisa but fails to mention that Steve was happily married and had other children. Fails to mention that Lisa actually lived with Steve and his family for several years and that Steve paid for her college education. The problem with this movie is it's mostly fiction but some fact. If it was complete fiction with made-up names nobody would be trying to reconcile it with what actually happened.
What did you want to see? A reenactment of the iPhone Keynote? Jeez, to make something of interest, a movie needs to be about something interesting and vaguely unknown. The reason no one goes to see this, is precisely because everyone thinks it is about Steve Jobs and Apple, who wants more Apple?
Well, this should be wonderful news for Apple reactionaries, for who straight up hagiography is the only acceptable presentation. (Similar to the cheers for the box office failure of "Ender's Game".) Would be interesting to see how many will wind up watching it on Netflix so they can keep their ideological purity by not having paid to see it in a theater.
The box office take is split with the movie theaters. Assuming a 50/50 split, then yes, it would need to take in $120 million in theater receipts in order to provide the movie house with its $60 million break-even costs.
That's not really how this works. The first couple of weeks the studio gets 75% to 80% with that percentage dropping each week after. After the fourth week the theater keeps around 80%
Most tickets are sold however in the first couple of weeks
"The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that 'Steve Jobs' needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even."
No. If it were to bring in $120 million, the movie would make 100% profit, using the numbers from the first statement.
Or is this part of Hollywood's "accounting" that if the numbers work out like this, they tell their investors the movie broke even and there is no profit for them.
Hollywood will make up the difference by finding some kid who illegally downloaded it and then sue him for $60 million.
It deserves to fail.. Mean spirited movies just aren't attractive.
You're thinking of Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine.
This is a different movie. I think Sorkin takes a positive view of Steve, for all his faults. They make an interesting character. Just remember that you're watching an artistic interpretation of Jobs.
As for you, AI, you should be ashamed of how you went gaga over this movie. You were so flattered that they invited you to see the movie as a VIP weeks ahead of us peasants that you entirely stopped thinking critically and just endorsed the hell out of it. How embarrassing.
I'm finding AI's breathless take to be curious at best, dubious at most as well....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadMonk
I am a fan of Fassbender. Twelve years a slave is a masterpiece. This movie is not. Aaron Sorkin is full of it.
For all the Fassbender fans in the thread, the answer's simple.... ...not all talented actors can draw people to the multiplex - especially for an ill-conceived flick..... ...or as stated below.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacVicta
Those movies had strong ensemble casts, of which he played a part. He was not the leading star. I didn't say he couldn't act; I said he doesn't put asses in theater seats. He can't be relied upon to carry a big budget film.
Except Steve Jobs the movie doesn't follow the book closely at all, even if you discount the altered timeline. Isaacson's book is well-researched, well-written and authorized, but the movie includes Sorkin's personal take on events, which are blatantly wrong and seem fully intended not to create discussion and controversy but rather to disparage Jobs--and in turn disparage Apple. Personally, I believe Sorkin couldn't wrap his head around it all--especially the technology--and so he wrote a screenplay to please himself and focused primarily on Jobs' relationships with Chrisann and Lisa. (On that subject, has anyone ever pursued the train of thought that Jobs didn't like Chrisann very much, that he was fearful of what their offspring might be like, and that he thought early on that Chrisann should have aborted the child because he was not in a position at least emotionally to help raise the child? How much say did Jobs have?)
[This weekend, I heard a professional movie reviewer (name unknown) who said after watching the film, he was glad he'd never bought an Apple computer. Congratulations, Aaron.]
Examples of major errors in Sorkin's revisionist history, which he would prefer we call "artistic license":
Apple/Jobs did not steal Xerox PARC's GUI. Apple bought the technology legally and for a low price, because Xerox upper management didn't know what to do with it. Jobs instantly recognized its value, though, and snapped it up immediately. Bill Gates visited Xerox PARC 2 weeks later--guess why!--but the sale was already complete. The Xerox GUI lacked folders and pull-down menus, which everyone takes for granted since 1984; and on the hardware front, the mouse was impractical and everything required a $100K computer to function. Apple did far more than just acquire the nascent technology, it fleshed out the GUI and made it run on hardware that was practical to manufacture and purchase.
[SIZE=18px]No way[/SIZE] did Jobs or anyone else anticipate his returning to Apple when he founded NeXT. (Somebody ask Sorkin to produce the Guy Kawasaki article he suggests in the movie existed ca. 1988 that says so!) Nor does it seem [SIZE=20px]at all[/SIZE] plausible that Jobs would start NeXT (and nearly go bankrupt in the process!) with the expectation that the company would fail.
Steve Jobs (the man) indeed believed he was to be honored as Time's Man of the Year and consequently gave Time reporters unprecedented access to the company, which is said to have backfired when Kottke talked about the strained relationship between Steve, Chrisann and Lisa. Sorkin inserts his own opinion that Jobs should have recognized that Time never had such an intention, because the Man of the Year cover image was that of a sculpture (a man sitting at a computer), and production of a sculpture takes time. First, even if Sorkin were right (which he's not), this has no bearing on Time misleading Jobs; Second, the sculpture depicted on the magazine cover is of such poor quality that it could easily have been produced in days, if not hours; Third, if indeed it was Kottke's statements that sunk Jobs' opportunity to appear on the cover, his statements might have been acquired months in advance of the publication deadline, giving Time's management plenty of time to adjust their plans.
Contrary to Sorkin's script, NeXT absolutely did have an OS at the product launch. Avie Tevanian was an OS "guru" and one of the first employees at NeXT. The NeXTStep OS was based on the Mach OS, which Tevanian invented at Carnegie Mellon. The API for developers was perhaps not fully fleshed out at launch time, but the Cube definitely had an OS. Sorkin seems unable to comprehend such matters, though! And where did Sorkin get the idea that Tevanian would be assigned the task of finding a satisfactory shark image for the iMac launch? Furthermore, as for Jobs supposedly giving perfunctory answers to inquiries about when the Cube would be available to purchase, every biography of the man indicates that he abhorred delays.
Steve Wozniak effectively retired from Apple in 1981--3 years before the movie even begins--after suffering a tragic, traumatic head injury in a private plane crash that severely diminished his mental capacity.
Joanna Hoffmann followed Jobs from Apple to NeXT but left NeXT long before it was acquired by Apple.
I noticed many of the same inaccuracies. The details are incorrect, but Sorkin created completely fictional dialogue and situations to tell a story, and continuity across time periods was needed. Introducing new characters later in the movie breaks this continuity, and makes it difficult to show an a character arc.
(2) bit of stretch to put lisa in every event. However, it is a clever linkage from screen writer point of view.
(3) overall it is feel like good B-movie for the low budget theatrical event. the dialogue save the day.
(4) you do need listen carefully to get all the fast talking linkage. If you know the background of Jobs, with some technical stuff, it helps a lot.
(5) not surprise didn't do well on the weekend. the target audience might wait for the dvd download or weekday half price ticket day. It is not a movie you have to see on the big screen (even for the launch event... ).
(6) I am glad I saw it during the weekend. Enjoy the dialogue with a group of good friends. the feeling of living near the edge is universal, not just in apple. Bleeding edge - named for a good reason.
"The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that 'Steve Jobs' needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even."
No. If it were to bring in $120 million, the movie would make 100% profit, using the numbers from the first statement.
Or is this part of Hollywood's "accounting" that if the numbers work out like this, they tell their investors the movie broke even and there is no profit for them.
Some people mentioned the studio take but I doubt it is 50%. In any case the 3 weekends it's been on show garnered it $9m. It might have legs and it has yet to be shown abroad. Most importantly it will have Oscar nominations and that alone will give it a second wind early next year, to coincide with a limited re-release and the DVD, digital releases. ( Although Apple could cause problems there but I hope they don't).
I doubt they spent $30M on advertising yet either. They just released a few trailers.
How do you do a movie about Steve Jobs and completely ignore the last 15 years of his life? This movie focuses on Steve's daughter Lisa but fails to mention that Steve was happily married and had other children. Fails to mention that Lisa actually lived with Steve and his family for several years and that Steve paid for her college education. The problem with this movie is it's mostly fiction but some fact. If it was complete fiction with made-up names nobody would be trying to reconcile it with what actually happened.
That is coming in the squeal "Steve Jobs Part 2 - APPageddon"
The box office take is split with the movie theaters. Assuming a 50/50 split, then yes, it would need to take in $120 million in theater receipts in order to provide the movie house with its $60 million break-even costs.
The split on movie tickets is more like 95/5, theaters make their money on drinks and popcorn, etc.
I did some research and a Oscar bait release in 2014, the grand Budapest hotel didn't break the top 5 on release ( first weekend was $8m) but ended up with total box office of $179M
The life of Steve Jobs just doesn't appeal to the mainstream movie-going audience. And what little that audience already knows of Jobs, besides that he died, they don't like. So it shouldn't be any surprise that it wouldn't do great, maybe even good box office.
Even if every Apple and Mac fan and fanboi see this movie, I doubt that it would make money. Even if Meryl Streep played Jobs... Well, maybe. But a lot of fans aren't interested in this movie, so that winnows the prospective gate even more.
I wonder how this movie would have done if it were about an entirely fictional character that we didn't associate with Jobs or anybody else, evaluating the movie for the acting, editing, dialogue, etc. My only exposure to Sorkin, is West Wing. I really enjoyed the dialogue and pacing of the series, apparently Sorkin hallmarks.
So maybe I'll see it some time from now, when I'll be less likely to focus on accuracy (however much I may know) and try to see it on it's own merit, something like JFK. Maybe not.
Comments
How do you do a movie about Steve Jobs and completely ignore the last 15 years of his life? This movie focuses on Steve's daughter Lisa but fails to mention that Steve was happily married and had other children. Fails to mention that Lisa actually lived with Steve and his family for several years and that Steve paid for her college education. The problem with this movie is it's mostly fiction but some fact. If it was complete fiction with made-up names nobody would be trying to reconcile it with what actually happened.
What did you want to see? A reenactment of the iPhone Keynote? Jeez, to make something of interest, a movie needs to be about something interesting and vaguely unknown. The reason no one goes to see this, is precisely because everyone thinks it is about Steve Jobs and Apple, who wants more Apple?
This is the Boyle one. Danny Boyle is the director, Aaron Sorkin is the writer of the screenplay.
The box office take is split with the movie theaters. Assuming a 50/50 split, then yes, it would need to take in $120 million in theater receipts in order to provide the movie house with its $60 million break-even costs.
That's not really how this works. The first couple of weeks the studio gets 75% to 80% with that percentage dropping each week after. After the fourth week the theater keeps around 80%
Most tickets are sold however in the first couple of weeks
This is the Boyle one. Danny Boyle is the director, Aaron Sorkin is the writer of the screenplay.
Oh I see. Great!!
What kind of math is this?
"The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that 'Steve Jobs' needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even."
No. If it were to bring in $120 million, the movie would make 100% profit, using the numbers from the first statement.
Or is this part of Hollywood's "accounting" that if the numbers work out like this, they tell their investors the movie broke even and there is no profit for them.
Hollywood will make up the difference by finding some kid who illegally downloaded it and then sue him for $60 million.
Anyone know if Kate Winslet is naked in it? She's pretty much naked in all her films so......
You're thinking of Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine.
This is a different movie. I think Sorkin takes a positive view of Steve, for all his faults. They make an interesting character. Just remember that you're watching an artistic interpretation of Jobs.
As for you, AI, you should be ashamed of how you went gaga over this movie. You were so flattered that they invited you to see the movie as a VIP weeks ahead of us peasants that you entirely stopped thinking critically and just endorsed the hell out of it. How embarrassing.
I'm finding AI's breathless take to be curious at best, dubious at most as well....
I am a fan of Fassbender. Twelve years a slave is a masterpiece. This movie is not. Aaron Sorkin is full of it.
For all the Fassbender fans in the thread, the answer's simple.... ...not all talented actors can draw people to the multiplex - especially for an ill-conceived flick..... ...or as stated below.....
Those movies had strong ensemble casts, of which he played a part. He was not the leading star. I didn't say he couldn't act; I said he doesn't put asses in theater seats. He can't be relied upon to carry a big budget film.
I noticed many of the same inaccuracies. The details are incorrect, but Sorkin created completely fictional dialogue and situations to tell a story, and continuity across time periods was needed. Introducing new characters later in the movie breaks this continuity, and makes it difficult to show an a character arc.
(1) good movie - good drama. smart dialogue.
(2) bit of stretch to put lisa in every event. However, it is a clever linkage from screen writer point of view.
(3) overall it is feel like good B-movie for the low budget theatrical event. the dialogue save the day.
(4) you do need listen carefully to get all the fast talking linkage. If you know the background of Jobs, with some technical stuff, it helps a lot.
(5) not surprise didn't do well on the weekend. the target audience might wait for the dvd download or weekday half price ticket day. It is not a movie you have to see on the big screen (even for the launch event... ).
(6) I am glad I saw it during the weekend. Enjoy the dialogue with a group of good friends. the feeling of living near the edge is universal, not just in apple. Bleeding edge - named for a good reason.
Some people mentioned the studio take but I doubt it is 50%. In any case the 3 weekends it's been on show garnered it $9m. It might have legs and it has yet to be shown abroad. Most importantly it will have Oscar nominations and that alone will give it a second wind early next year, to coincide with a limited re-release and the DVD, digital releases. ( Although Apple could cause problems there but I hope they don't).
I doubt they spent $30M on advertising yet either. They just released a few trailers.
How do you do a movie about Steve Jobs and completely ignore the last 15 years of his life? This movie focuses on Steve's daughter Lisa but fails to mention that Steve was happily married and had other children. Fails to mention that Lisa actually lived with Steve and his family for several years and that Steve paid for her college education. The problem with this movie is it's mostly fiction but some fact. If it was complete fiction with made-up names nobody would be trying to reconcile it with what actually happened.
That is coming in the squeal "Steve Jobs Part 2 - APPageddon"
You thought you were safe....
BWAAAAAAAH
Then you installed an app....
BWAAAAAAAH
Coming, summer 2017.....
BWAAAAAAAH
It's APPAGEDDON!!!
(this film has not yet been rated)
The box office take is split with the movie theaters. Assuming a 50/50 split, then yes, it would need to take in $120 million in theater receipts in order to provide the movie house with its $60 million break-even costs.
The split on movie tickets is more like 95/5, theaters make their money on drinks and popcorn, etc.
I wouldn't worry about the investors here.
It flops because the subject matter (a dead tech guy) is just boring for almost everyone alive.
I think you might have hit the nail on the head there.
If I may expand on that thought, the people alive who care the most about the subject matter won't go pay to see it because of reasons.
In the end though I bet it makes enough money for everyone involved to get paid and even make a bit of extra dough before its all said and done.
The life of Steve Jobs just doesn't appeal to the mainstream movie-going audience. And what little that audience already knows of Jobs, besides that he died, they don't like. So it shouldn't be any surprise that it wouldn't do great, maybe even good box office.
Even if every Apple and Mac fan and fanboi see this movie, I doubt that it would make money. Even if Meryl Streep played Jobs... Well, maybe. But a lot of fans aren't interested in this movie, so that winnows the prospective gate even more.
I wonder how this movie would have done if it were about an entirely fictional character that we didn't associate with Jobs or anybody else, evaluating the movie for the acting, editing, dialogue, etc. My only exposure to Sorkin, is West Wing. I really enjoyed the dialogue and pacing of the series, apparently Sorkin hallmarks.
So maybe I'll see it some time from now, when I'll be less likely to focus on accuracy (however much I may know) and try to see it on it's own merit, something like JFK. Maybe not.