The sooner the better. This might be the wrong movie about him, but if you wait too long, interest wains. Jobs' life was not interesting enough to make a popular modern movie without throwing in some significant fiction, and waiting for a long time just makes him less and less relevant.
Oh, I will see it. Whether or not in the theater, that's a different question, as I rarely get to the theater much anymore. But frankly, I'm far more interested in pretty much anything by Sorkin and Fassbender than I am in your opinion.
Sorkin writes fantasy - "The Social Network" was totally not true, but still an entertaining movie that I liked. I only became angry later, because seeing the movie (without any prior knowledge) had me believing that it was the real story.
Years ago when I first heard that Sorkin was doing the script, I made my views known on this site more than once, and I guess that the movie turned out to be pretty much how I predicted.
This is not some movie about a historical person who lived hundreds of years ago. This is about a person who passed away not that many years ago, and it's just dumb to make shit up, when the truth is far better and more interesting. Why even bother to call this movie Steve Jobs? Why not use a fictional character title for a fictional film?
Many people who did know Steve Jobs well have come out and criticized this film. Besides Woz, who got paid hundreds of thousands to consult on the film, who knew Jobs well that likes this movie? The list of people who knew him well and who bash the film is far more numerous than the Woz's of the world I think.
Jobs was the Edison of our time. There will be plenty of interest in a few years when the right vehicle for his story will finally be written, imo. But the time is not yet ripe.
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.
I'm so glad you mentioned that because it was on my list to mention and somehow got missed.
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.
At least here in Canada, somebody spent a bunch of money on prime-time advertisements on TV for it, as I've skipped past a bunch of them. Not sure if the channels had ads from the US or Canada [as some shows are simulcast, so the US channel shows ads from the Canada feed].
Now ask your self how bad a writer Walter Isaacson must be to screw up a book that should have practically written itself.
I don't buy this criticism. I've read the book twice, and I think he nailed it. Isaacson's grasp of the tech industry wasn't an issue. It was about as objective as a person could make it given the "reality distortion field." I didn't find it critical or mean-spirited as some Apple execs wait it was. It was not particularly sympathetic either. I think it is the definitive biography of Jobs. Especially since Jobs specifically asked Isaacson to write it and gave him unlimited access to his life, an unprecedented gesture of trust. Bad writers don't get that kind of distinction.
Jobs was the Edison of our time. There will be plenty of interest in a few years when the right vehicle for his story will finally be written, imo. But the time is not yet ripe.
I don't think you're making the comparison you think you're making. Unless you want to draw comparisons to the fight for DC power being the right solution to transmit current vs. the idea that you need fancy 1-off licensed cable technology to charge a battery.
The major issue I had with the film was that Michael Fassbender neither looks or sounds like Jobs. And that makes it really hard to believe in the story.
I doubt they spent $30M on advertising yet either. They just released a few trailers.
There was a huge ad buy over the weekend, basically all of the college football games on Saturday and again for the pro games on Sunday. We're talking all of the major networks: CBS, ABC, Fox, ESPN. Serious money was spent trying to generate traffic at the box office.
I don't buy this criticism. I've read the book twice, and I think he nailed it. Isaacson's grasp of the tech industry wasn't an issue. It was about as objective as a person could make it given the "reality distortion field." I didn't find it critical or mean-spirited as some Apple execs wait it was. It was not particularly sympathetic either. I think it is the definitive biography of Jobs. Especially since Jobs specifically asked Isaacson to write it and gave him unlimited access to his life, an unprecedented gesture of trust. Bad writers don't get that kind of distinction.
Someone who refers to NeXT as "UNIX warmed over" because that's what Bill Gates told him has no grasp of technology whatsoever. NeXT made very real contributions to object oriented programming and user interface. Isaacson squandered his time with Jobs- he wasn't able to ask any questions at all about the history of technology because he didn't know it well enough to ask an intelligent question on the subject. He spent most of his time on Jobs relationships and feelings. For a guy who spent most of his life at work that's a pretty weird way of looking at things. As an example of his incompetence, Isaacson wasn't able to get any real details about why Antennagate happened, so he made up his own assertion that it was all driven by the desire to look good. In fact, history has shown that external antennas do have better reception and they are now industry standard. The first one just wasn't perfect. The list of his tech fails goes on forever... like his "I've finally nailed it" TV thing that never happened.
As for his lack of sympathy for Jobs, sure, you can applaud that he went out of his way to not trust his number one source. But he didn't fill that in with good scholarship- he just let people like Gates and Woz say whatever they wanted and wrote it in as if it were Gospel. Face it, the bio was garbage.
The sooner the better. This might be the wrong movie about him, but if you wait too long, interest wains. Jobs' life was not interesting enough to make a popular modern movie without throwing in some significant fiction, and waiting for a long time just makes him less and less relevant.
I guess only time will tell how lives will have changed due to the foundations he lay. If the impact is significant, a movie about the "historic" person may be of different interest than now. As I stated before: currently this topic appeals o lay to a very small group within the general public that will give you the look like "Steve who? Ah. Uhum. What's next, a movie about the creator of this toaster or lampshade?"
Sorkin writes fantasy - "The Social Network" was totally not true, but still an entertaining movie that I liked. I only became angry later, because seeing the movie (without any prior knowledge) had me believing that it was the real story.
The main theme of the movie was that Zuckerberg was love lorn but he had a gf in college. That's a huge misrepresentation.
I just love the AI accounts with about a dozen posts over the course of a decade.
Thanks, John. Not all of us have the time to incessantly bloviate via blog, or feel the necessity to point fingers at others to bolster our know-it-all self esteem.
I am 65, and have owned a myriad of Apple machines starting with the //e I purchased in 1983. I have 5 macs distributed throughout my home; the oldest being a 3.06 24" iMac, the newest a 2014 MBP. I still fire up the //e on occasion just to remind myself how far we have come from Prodos and 6502 assembler.
Comments
It's too soon to make a movie about Steve Jobs...
The sooner the better. This might be the wrong movie about him, but if you wait too long, interest wains. Jobs' life was not interesting enough to make a popular modern movie without throwing in some significant fiction, and waiting for a long time just makes him less and less relevant.
Oh, I will see it. Whether or not in the theater, that's a different question, as I rarely get to the theater much anymore. But frankly, I'm far more interested in pretty much anything by Sorkin and Fassbender than I am in your opinion.
Sorkin writes fantasy - "The Social Network" was totally not true, but still an entertaining movie that I liked. I only became angry later, because seeing the movie (without any prior knowledge) had me believing that it was the real story.
Years ago when I first heard that Sorkin was doing the script, I made my views known on this site more than once, and I guess that the movie turned out to be pretty much how I predicted.
This is not some movie about a historical person who lived hundreds of years ago. This is about a person who passed away not that many years ago, and it's just dumb to make shit up, when the truth is far better and more interesting. Why even bother to call this movie Steve Jobs? Why not use a fictional character title for a fictional film?
Many people who did know Steve Jobs well have come out and criticized this film. Besides Woz, who got paid hundreds of thousands to consult on the film, who knew Jobs well that likes this movie? The list of people who knew him well and who bash the film is far more numerous than the Woz's of the world I think.
Woz loved the film artistically, but says it's all made up: https://screen.yahoo.com/popular/steve-wozniak-separates-fact-fiction-225820691.html
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.
I'm so glad you mentioned that because it was on my list to mention and somehow got missed.
Thanks for the link to the Woz interview, too.
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.
At least here in Canada, somebody spent a bunch of money on prime-time advertisements on TV for it, as I've skipped past a bunch of them. Not sure if the channels had ads from the US or Canada [as some shows are simulcast, so the US channel shows ads from the Canada feed].
I don't buy this criticism. I've read the book twice, and I think he nailed it. Isaacson's grasp of the tech industry wasn't an issue. It was about as objective as a person could make it given the "reality distortion field." I didn't find it critical or mean-spirited as some Apple execs wait it was. It was not particularly sympathetic either. I think it is the definitive biography of Jobs. Especially since Jobs specifically asked Isaacson to write it and gave him unlimited access to his life, an unprecedented gesture of trust. Bad writers don't get that kind of distinction.
Jobs was the Edison of our time. There will be plenty of interest in a few years when the right vehicle for his story will finally be written, imo. But the time is not yet ripe.
I don't think you're making the comparison you think you're making. Unless you want to draw comparisons to the fight for DC power being the right solution to transmit current vs. the idea that you need fancy 1-off licensed cable technology to charge a battery.
The Tesla. Calling him Edison is pretty mean.
Fair enough. There’s certainly a case to be made for that.
I can do this, but only in person. It terrifies people. The facial expressions are the best.
I doubt they spent $30M on advertising yet either. They just released a few trailers.
There was a huge ad buy over the weekend, basically all of the college football games on Saturday and again for the pro games on Sunday. We're talking all of the major networks: CBS, ABC, Fox, ESPN. Serious money was spent trying to generate traffic at the box office.
I just love the AI accounts with about a dozen posts over the course of a decade.
As for his lack of sympathy for Jobs, sure, you can applaud that he went out of his way to not trust his number one source. But he didn't fill that in with good scholarship- he just let people like Gates and Woz say whatever they wanted and wrote it in as if it were Gospel. Face it, the bio was garbage.
I guess only time will tell how lives will have changed due to the foundations he lay. If the impact is significant, a movie about the "historic" person may be of different interest than now. As I stated before: currently this topic appeals o lay to a very small group within the general public that will give you the look like "Steve who? Ah. Uhum. What's next, a movie about the creator of this toaster or lampshade?"
The main theme of the movie was that Zuckerberg was love lorn but he had a gf in college. That's a huge misrepresentation.
I just love the AI accounts with about a dozen posts over the course of a decade.
Thanks, John. Not all of us have the time to incessantly bloviate via blog, or feel the necessity to point fingers at others to bolster our know-it-all self esteem.
I am 65, and have owned a myriad of Apple machines starting with the //e I purchased in 1983. I have 5 macs distributed throughout my home; the oldest being a 3.06 24" iMac, the newest a 2014 MBP. I still fire up the //e on occasion just to remind myself how far we have come from Prodos and 6502 assembler.