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.
It's seems odd that you quoted my entire post rather than just the two brief items at its end that are mere details: Wozniak was a token Apple employee 3 years before the storyline began and Hoffman stopped working for Jobs long before he returned to Apple. I do believe noting these details helps the uneducated viewer to better understand the degree of manipulation*. The rest of my post concerns factual inaccuracies that are highly significant and cast aspersions on Jobs and Apple. For the 1% who know better, the movie casts aspersions on Sorkin.
*Of course, if we're to look at manipulation of facts in a movie--and how much the viewership swallowed the fiction--there's perhaps no better example than Argo.
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.
I saw and liked The Social Network, but mainly for the direction and cinematography. In a good movie Sorkin's "diarrhea of the mouth" writing style is tolerable. I found his preachy and condescending tendencies in his recent TV series (The Newsroom?) unbearable beyond 15 minutes of exposure.
You're also assuming that the average audience goer gives a crap about that. Which he or she doesn't. Heck, the average audience goer doesn't have even close to the information necessary to make a judgement either way.
And that makes it ok? No, it doesn't. The film wasn't a biopic, but they definitely wanted the audience to assume it was.
I'm glad it tanked. It didn't deserve to do well. From everything I've read, it's nothing more than a cynical hitpiece that doesn't even attempt to capture who Jobs really was, using fiction to exaggerate his flaws and eliminate his virtues.
I went to see it on Friday and there was only one ... yes one ... other person at the afternoon showing!
Completely underwhelming. We need to get the word out that this is a real snoozer to be avoided. The studio may not even make their $30 mil back when they include DVD sales.
Would have been much more successful if they'd have cut out the lengthy Woz whining and continued on with the big Jobs achievements after the original iMac.
People who hadn't followed Jobs for years and years (or read the book this movie was based on) wouldn't have a clue. In short, the movie sucks.
It's a movie about Steve Jobs staring an actor who looks nothing like Steve Jobs.
Remember the movie Lincoln? ...imagine it with an actor who looked nothing like Lincoln. It would have been silly. To me, the movie Steve Jobs seems equally as silly. Why would I spend money to see it?
"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.
Maybe the theaters keep 50%? If it cost $30m to make and $30m to market, it needs $60m of real income. $120m theater take is not $120m in real income to the studio, etc. The theaters have to make a profit, pay their rent, pay their employees, etc.
hahahaha. No. Movie theatres owners would cream their pants right now if they got a 50/50 split for tickets of a new movie. At least for any movie people actually want to see.
Now, for this specific movie, it's possible they agreed to give the theatres a small percentage to show the film, but it is NOT the usual case.
So you are saying the theater owners build theaters and show movies as an act of charity? They don't get to keep any of the ticket price? I find that highly suspect, considering they have to pay for the theater buildings, the rent, the taxes, the employees, etc. that actually make it possible to show the movie.
Reminded me of a Cassavetes film from the 60s. Was more about Aaron Sorkin than Steve Jobs but I enjoyed it. An old school arthouse film. Totally understand why Fincher and Bale, baled, and Sony and Universal put the script in turnaround. But was nonetheless brilliant in a Sorkin kind of way.
Let the record show that Sorkin had the chance to write a drama about the greatest story in American business history since Ford, the greatest media transformation since Gutenberg, maybe the greatest personal transformation ever for an "industrialist"— and he blew it, and turned it into a People Magazine three-part psychological mini series, compressed for binge viewing.
A sign of the mental weakness of our age, and its overwrought emotionality. Sorry, Danny Boyle and the good actors in this movie, but it was the slick but lying script.
So you are saying the theater owners build theaters and show movies as an act of charity? They don't get to keep any of the ticket price? I find that highly suspect, considering they have to pay for the theater buildings, the rent, the taxes, the employees, etc. that actually make it possible to show the movie.
Theater owners keep very little of the ticket prices especially in a film's first few weeks of release. They make most of their money on concessions
So, like, the officially sanctioned biography of Steve Jobs, created in cooperatio with Jobs himself...
Just because Jobs chose Isaacson to write his biography doesn't mean Isaacson did a good job. My opinion is that it was entertaining to read, but Isaacson inserted all sorts of psychobabble to try to "explain" why Jobs did and said certain things. Such as, pulling up the fact Jobs was adopted to explain his drive for success - pure psychobabble. It also felt like the last third of the book was rushed and not very well done, just so they could get it published right after Jobs died.
Jobs never saw the finished product, or consulted with Isaacson about the tenor of the book - he trusted Isaacson, which turned out to be unfortunate for those of us who wanted a better, objective book without the psychobabble.
Maybe it's time that Hollywood realised that ordinary people don't actually want to see a movie about Steve Jobs? And the people who do want to see such a film, will want a legitimate story. Both Apple/Jobs are simply too well known to show anything that we don't already know about.
How many flopped Steve Jobs biopics does it take to get the message across?
If Sorkin was hoping to cash in on some mindless zombie-crowd who'd consume anything with an apple on it, then perhaps Sorkin slagging Tim Cook and Apple (with yet more fiction) was a grand misstep.
Any minor interest I had in the film was certainly vanquished by Sorkin's prattling, it let me in on Sorkin's view and thus how he would be portraying the subject.
"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.
The $120 million would be ticket receipts, which are shared with the theatres; also, anyone who has a percentage interest in the film gets paid out of the receipts. So the actual amount that goes to the studio will be much less than $120 million (maybe only half that much?).
That said, your point about Hollywood accounting is a good one, though it doesn't look like it quite applies here.
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....
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...
There's a lot more also. A very big one is that Lisa lived with Jobs and his new family while she was in high school - the movie makes a big point out of saying that Lisa and Steve didn't reconcile (or even speak) until much later.
There's an interesting interview of Wozniak (with Bloomberg's Emily Chang). He starts off by saying it's a brilliant movie and he loved it, then piece by piece explains how nothing in the movie is as it happened. He says "everything in the movie is not true" - he never said any of the things the movie shows him saying, he wasn't at any of the places he's shown, etc. He finally says he feels bad for Laurene Jobs and her family, to have such an untrue portrayal of their husband and father.
Comments
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.
It's seems odd that you quoted my entire post rather than just the two brief items at its end that are mere details: Wozniak was a token Apple employee 3 years before the storyline began and Hoffman stopped working for Jobs long before he returned to Apple. I do believe noting these details helps the uneducated viewer to better understand the degree of manipulation*. The rest of my post concerns factual inaccuracies that are highly significant and cast aspersions on Jobs and Apple. For the 1% who know better, the movie casts aspersions on Sorkin.
*Of course, if we're to look at manipulation of facts in a movie--and how much the viewership swallowed the fiction--there's perhaps no better example than Argo.
I saw and liked The Social Network, but mainly for the direction and cinematography. In a good movie Sorkin's "diarrhea of the mouth" writing style is tolerable. I found his preachy and condescending tendencies in his recent TV series (The Newsroom?) unbearable beyond 15 minutes of exposure.
Now that it has bombed, everyone is on the suck bandwagon.
You're also assuming that the average audience goer gives a crap about that. Which he or she doesn't. Heck, the average audience goer doesn't have even close to the information necessary to make a judgement either way.
And that makes it ok? No, it doesn't. The film wasn't a biopic, but they definitely wanted the audience to assume it was.
I'm glad it tanked. It didn't deserve to do well. From everything I've read, it's nothing more than a cynical hitpiece that doesn't even attempt to capture who Jobs really was, using fiction to exaggerate his flaws and eliminate his virtues.
Completely underwhelming. We need to get the word out that this is a real snoozer to be avoided. The studio may not even make their $30 mil back when they include DVD sales.
Would have been much more successful if they'd have cut out the lengthy Woz whining and continued on with the big Jobs achievements after the original iMac.
People who hadn't followed Jobs for years and years (or read the book this movie was based on) wouldn't have a clue. In short, the movie sucks.
Remember the movie Lincoln? ...imagine it with an actor who looked nothing like Lincoln. It would have been silly. To me, the movie Steve Jobs seems equally as silly. Why would I spend money to see it?
Pass.
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.
Maybe the theaters keep 50%? If it cost $30m to make and $30m to market, it needs $60m of real income. $120m theater take is not $120m in real income to the studio, etc. The theaters have to make a profit, pay their rent, pay their employees, etc.
hahahaha. No. Movie theatres owners would cream their pants right now if they got a 50/50 split for tickets of a new movie. At least for any movie people actually want to see.
Now, for this specific movie, it's possible they agreed to give the theatres a small percentage to show the film, but it is NOT the usual case.
So you are saying the theater owners build theaters and show movies as an act of charity? They don't get to keep any of the ticket price? I find that highly suspect, considering they have to pay for the theater buildings, the rent, the taxes, the employees, etc. that actually make it possible to show the movie.
Two explanations on how the movie business works (taking their word for it)
http://themovieblog.com/2007/economics-of-the-movie-theater-where-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much/
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution2.htm
A sign of the mental weakness of our age, and its overwrought emotionality. Sorry, Danny Boyle and the good actors in this movie, but it was the slick but lying script.
So you are saying the theater owners build theaters and show movies as an act of charity? They don't get to keep any of the ticket price? I find that highly suspect, considering they have to pay for the theater buildings, the rent, the taxes, the employees, etc. that actually make it possible to show the movie.
Theater owners keep very little of the ticket prices especially in a film's first few weeks of release. They make most of their money on concessions
Much
Fail
Clearly Danny Boyle (the director) should've cast Danny Trejo (complete with knives and daggers) as Steve Jobs.
It's too soon to make a movie about Steve Jobs...
Not really, they need to do it while those who really knew Steve are still around and still remember.
Of course that's assuming they want to do an honest on Steve Jobs movie, not some negative on Steve Jobs fiction.
Thx to those who gave honest reviews I didn't waste my time and money !
So, like, the officially sanctioned biography of Steve Jobs, created in cooperatio with Jobs himself...
Just because Jobs chose Isaacson to write his biography doesn't mean Isaacson did a good job. My opinion is that it was entertaining to read, but Isaacson inserted all sorts of psychobabble to try to "explain" why Jobs did and said certain things. Such as, pulling up the fact Jobs was adopted to explain his drive for success - pure psychobabble. It also felt like the last third of the book was rushed and not very well done, just so they could get it published right after Jobs died.
Jobs never saw the finished product, or consulted with Isaacson about the tenor of the book - he trusted Isaacson, which turned out to be unfortunate for those of us who wanted a better, objective book without the psychobabble.
Maybe it's time that Hollywood realised that ordinary people don't actually want to see a movie about Steve Jobs? And the people who do want to see such a film, will want a legitimate story. Both Apple/Jobs are simply too well known to show anything that we don't already know about.
How many flopped Steve Jobs biopics does it take to get the message across?
If Sorkin was hoping to cash in on some mindless zombie-crowd who'd consume anything with an apple on it, then perhaps Sorkin slagging Tim Cook and Apple (with yet more fiction) was a grand misstep.
Any minor interest I had in the film was certainly vanquished by Sorkin's prattling, it let me in on Sorkin's view and thus how he would be portraying the subject.
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.
The $120 million would be ticket receipts, which are shared with the theatres; also, anyone who has a percentage interest in the film gets paid out of the receipts. So the actual amount that goes to the studio will be much less than $120 million (maybe only half that much?).
That said, your point about Hollywood accounting is a good one, though it doesn't look like it quite applies here.
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....
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...
There's a lot more also. A very big one is that Lisa lived with Jobs and his new family while she was in high school - the movie makes a big point out of saying that Lisa and Steve didn't reconcile (or even speak) until much later.
There's an interesting interview of Wozniak (with Bloomberg's Emily Chang). He starts off by saying it's a brilliant movie and he loved it, then piece by piece explains how nothing in the movie is as it happened. He says "everything in the movie is not true" - he never said any of the things the movie shows him saying, he wasn't at any of the places he's shown, etc. He finally says he feels bad for Laurene Jobs and her family, to have such an untrue portrayal of their husband and father.
https://screen.yahoo.com/popular/steve-wozniak-separates-fact-fiction-225820691.html