Steve Jobs: Sorkin's Apple Joint

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEr6K1bwIVs#t=91

no

is this the one in all of the s0ny emails

"The Social Network: Sorkin's Zuckerberg Joint"

sorkin might be the only person I trust to really grasp how much of an asshole SJ apparently was (takes one to know one)

the critical esteem for sorkin mystifies me

and i feel like to see "the social network" as a triumph you'd have to overlook much of the screenplay

I think A.S. might worship Jobs to the extent he despised Zuck?

I can't imagine paying to see this.

Thank you for I will forever misread this thread title as Sorkin Apple's Joint and feel faintly nauseated.

This looks breathtakingly bad.

Going to be an epic RiffTrax, tho

and i feel like to see "the social network" as a triumph you'd have to overlook much of the screenplay

You might even consider it a David Fincher movie, which it is.

Similarly the line on the credits here says "A Danny Boyle movie".

...and as the Sony leaks showed, this was almost a Fincher/Bale movie.

One of the best lines in the Sony emails is Scott Rudin complaining that Fincher is the guy who wouldn't let the girl with the dragon tattoo be shown on the poster for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

Fincher would make a more believable Jobs than Fassbender tbh

and i feel like to see "the social network" as a triumph you'd have to overlook much of the screenplay

You might even consider it a David Fincher movie, which it is.

going hardcore auteurist, i see. well, i do admire fincher, and the film is certainly worth watching, but i'm not convinced he can overcome a screenplay stuffed with grindingly on-the-nose expository dialogue in nearly every scene.

i tried watching the west wing (that's sorkin, right?) a few times but was put off not only by the one-note stylistics (all steadicam walk-and-talks, all the time, it seemed) but by the overbearing and obvious liberal wish-fulfillment premise which seemed to run away from political reality even as the self-consciously clever dialogue wanted to insist on its hard-boiled-ness.

but you know, i'm far far far from an expert so i'm maybe i'm missing the upside to the "sorkin touch"

West Wing almost certainly the worst widely-acclaimed TV series ever made for exactly those reasons imo

I mean, he's a good drummer, you have to give him that.

I have to stop saying "why would anyone make this?"/ "why would anyone pay to see this?" On recent biopic threads, but really, who cares?

I mean, is the answer to the q. About why people make these things anything more than "to make money"?

I know that's the purpose of most commercial film making but generally people enjoy making them too and other people often enjoy watching them.

i tried watching the west wing (that's sorkin, right?) a few times but was put off not only by the one-note stylistics (all steadicam walk-and-talks, all the time, it seemed) but by the overbearing and obvious liberal wish-fulfillment premise which seemed to run away from political reality even as the self-consciously clever dialogue wanted to insist on its hard-boiled-ness.

― wizzz! (amateurist), Friday, July 3, 2015 7:17 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

otmfm this show is complete garbage, fuck walk-and-talk completely and forever too btw, hate that lame bulllshit technique

Sorkin aside I don't even get the idea of their being an interesting movie in Jobs' life.

Well, the book version sold more than 3 million copies...

RIP

social network was good and so was sports night but I can't really deal with sorkin's fake mametisms beyond that.

Well, the book version sold more than 3 million copies...

Too bad that Amazon ebook software that can track actual pages read wasn't around.

Well, the book version sold more than 3 million copies...
--... (Eazy)

I guess I can't imagine that being very cinematic. Story is at least as sordid as Facebook one though so maybe I'm wrong.

i'm sure the one-two punch of "social network" and "jobs" will rival eisenstein's "ivan" in its complex, nearly mad depiction of the paranoia and personal cost of great power

but nonetheless i doubt it will match the real classic of the genre

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/2831/tuker88p01.jpg

oh, i actually remember really liking that movie! (when it came out, which dates me)

it was one of the first movies where i recognized that it was doing some unusually things stylistically

and really, can any movie starring jeff bridges be that bad?

http://cdn.bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ripd_ver3_xlg.jpg

Tucker was the first film I saw in a theatre!

Tucker is v underrated - love Dean Stockwell as Howard Hughes - film seems to be in limbo at the moment, at least as far as a UK DVD/Blu is concerend

Getting pretty much raves from Telluride, other than a bunch of folks saying "Great movie, last 10 minutes is bad Danny Boyle."

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/steve-jobs/review/820561

Last 10 minutes are basically of a piece with the rest. It's all in service of redeeming unapologetic exceptionalism.

I think A.S. might worship Jobs to the extent he despised Zuck?

Yup. I wasn't a great fan of Social Network, but at least that film didn't particularly sentimentalize its subject's assholery.

why millennials suck 2: why boomers rule

I hope this is the last movie about this guy, RIP and all, nice computers guy, but sort of a depressing figure to elevate to heroism.

I'm going to intercut this with Miles Ahead (a la Godfather Saga) and call it "Think Different"

I do think he's an interesting subject, but I find it hard to believe that what makes him interesting is better explored in a (presumably) cheesy biopic than in an essay.

interesting this is widely described as Sorkin's rather than Boyle's (who ocassionally makes good pulp, othwise atrocities like Slumdog Millionaire). I guess the director reigns supreme unless there's a Pretentious Middlebrow TV Guy involved.

Sorkin has defeated almost every director and even his bout with Fincher was a draw.

I'd say Sorkin won a few sequences of that movie outright (anything with the depositions or Rooney Mara for example) but overall the film is Fincher.

I liked this spoof....

"What would I do? I'd shut Apple down and give the money back to the shareholders"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeiI8cd5rO4

First third or so I thought: jeez, if $5 million was the difference between Boyle and Fincher, they should've crowdsourced the difference. Starts out theatrically in a bad way, but everything but the score improves as it goes on. Not a landmark but good.

there needs to be a Woz movie, with the Woz just making exasperated faces in regards to Job's antics for two hours

anybody remember the Pirates of Silicon Valley TV movie? that shit was dire - fuckin' Noah Wylie

The film opens with the creation of the 1984 commercial for Apple Computer, which introduced the first Macintosh. Steve Jobs (Noah Wyle) is speaking with director Ridley Scott (J. G. Hertzler), trying to convey his idea that "We're creating a completely new consciousness." Scott, however, is more concerned at the moment with the technical aspects of the commercial.

The film then flashes forward to 1997 as Jobs, who has returned to Apple, is announcing a new deal with Microsoft at the 1997 Macworld Expo. His partner, Steve Wozniak or "Woz" (Joey Slotnick), is introduced as one of the two central narrators of the story. Wozniak notes to the audience the resemblance between "Big Brother" and the image of Bill Gates (Anthony Hall) on the screen behind Jobs during this announcement. Asking how they "got from there to here," the film turns to flashbacks of his youth with Jobs, prior to the forming of Apple.

The earliest flashback is in 1971 and takes place on the U.C. Berkeley campus during the period of the student anti-war movements. Jobs and Woz are shown caught on the campus during a riot between students and police. They flee and after finding safety, Jobs states to Woz, "Those guys think they're revolutionaries. They're not revolutionaries, we are."

ridley scott!

JOEY SLOTNICK!

I remember one scene from that where this really bad extra is on the beach chatting with other nerds and someone makes a disparaging remark about Jobs and the dude goes: "What? You're criticizing STEVE, man?" and starts shoving him and trying to kick his ass and shit

idk there is such a thing as a visionary and genius who's a boring human and doesn't deserve conventional Hollywood biopics

Jobs movies would be more interesting as historical fiction. like Jobs traveling back in time but having the procedure shrink him and being eaten in the bathtub by William Henry Taft

*Howard

Perhaps i'm just simple but i rlly liked this movie. Probably part of it is my confirmation bias b/c the movie reaffirms why i always liked the woz better. Also, I don't have time for a 500-page biography and i had no idea about his fucked up family issues, so the movie served me well as an abridged version of that. But now I wonder how close to the mark the movie is, factually. In any case, Woz himself approved of its portrayal of Steve, so at least they got that much right. Those last ten minutes, tho... Yeesh.

the Kutcher movie outgrossed this one in first week of wide release

America has spoken, Fassbender

that is sad

sad... but hilarious, c'mon.

the next steve jobs movie will be called "steve jobs: the apple computer guy" just to continue to increasing clarification in the titles.

The next movie will just be a start-up sound.

the failure of this film is all the sweeter knowing that there isn't a chance in hell that aaron sorkin is taking it in stride.

pirates was great!
woz and ballmer as extra-dimensional narrators
anthony michael hall as bill gates sputtering, "I GOT THE LOOT, STEVE"

totally mystified by why this movie is bombing. it's not bad! i thought it was surprisingly slight, and even though the aesthetic & acting & filmmaking were obviously leagues better than the Kutcher one, it wasn't the definitive biopic i was expecting. the 3 scenes in real time structure didn't really work because the same thing is happening in each scene, it all feels like one thing, and because they're always in a PANICKED RUSH, we don't really learn much. i didn't get any sense of why Jobs was a genius, but it was pretty clear how and why he was a profoundly shitty parent and husband.

really confused though why this isn't doing well. 2 years between biopics not enough? lack of interest in SJ? apple over saturation?

movies don't always bomb b/c they are bad and succeed b/c they are good.... i just think that the filmmakers overestimated the public appetite for stuff about steve jobs. i also think the kutcher biopic might have salted the earth a bit.

def the two years between biopics - a ton of people with enough interest to go and see a steve jobs biopic already did it 2 and a half years ago. aaron sorkin and danny boyle aren't too much of a draw i wouldn't have thought. and surely fassbender fatigue is setting in, kind of hate his guts at this juncture after thinking he was the best thing since sliced bread in hunger.

def think there was an overestimation of the number of ppl who give a flying shit about SJ (it takes more to make a hit movie than a best seller)

Some of the blame goes to the marketing. It's a challenge right now to put out a movie about Jobs that doesn't seem too famillar/annoying, He Changed The Way We Live, or too negative, The Cold Truth Behind The Warm Computer.

I thought the movie was good but mostly forgettable, with entertaining writing and good pacing throughout, and good performances from Rogen and others. I thought a lot about what Fincher's version could have been like, and how the detail of it likely would have nail its era (a la The Social Network), more than this did.

The Alex Gibney documentary is slightly stronger, also worth seeing.

Also, they really went hard with advertising from the Mad Men finale onward, and so a slow rollout hasn't served it well.

The Walter Isaacson book was a big deal, and best seller, and emerged right after his death (still just a mere 4 years ago!). People were interested. The Ashton movie seemed like an afterthought, since his death was still fresh and the book seemed to be a good final word (so to speak). So then another movie, coming so quickly, inspired by the aforementioned book, but with lots of facts changed and still not that far off from Jobs' death, seems a tad overkill, if not a step back. That it was written by Sorkin not too long after the likeminded "Social Network" (released just a year before Jobs died) just pushes it even further toward redundancy.

Did any of these things factor into its dudness? Maybe, but certainly all of these things at once could not have helped.

there should be like an hbo show about the pdp-11

maybe the next steve jobs movie will do better.

What About Jobs?

def think there was an overestimation of the number of ppl who give a flying shit about SJ (it takes more to make a hit movie than a best seller)

― skateboards are the new combover (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 27 October 2015 21:10 (Yesterday) Permalink

I think this is otm. Much as he's worshiped by biz and tech types, it's not like he's a beloved personality with the public at large. I mean, people may think that he's brilliant, but that's way different than thinking his life would make an interesting movie. His story is way boring compared to, I don't know, Stephen Hawking, Abraham Lincoln, or the members of NWA, to give three financially successful recent biopics.

Also the ads I saw for this were so dire, "Come watch this generically handsome guy be an haughty jerk, and I don't know, maybe he learns to become a father or something. Also Seth Rogen."

Feel like anyone genuinely shocked about this flopping probably just knows too many people who revere Steve Jobs.

i want a movie about the guys who designed those soviet personal computers that ignatiy vishnevetsky has been tweeting about

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSCEtzFUcAABJOE.jpg:large

He's the guy who managed the guys who made the iPhone/Toy Story is not a terribly exciting hook to most people. I suspect a Gates biopic would be more interesting, at least you'd have anti-trust shenanigans for drama.

don't know if a gates movie would have broader appeal, but at least you'd have the mid-life turn to serious philanthropy, and probably some heartfelt stuff with melinda

jobs himself is kind of boring, his products are far more interesting

Also the ads I saw for this were so dire, "Come watch this generically handsome guy be an haughty jerk, and I don't know, maybe he learns to become a father or something. Also Seth Rogen."

Contrast that with the trailer that shows people using ,Facebook underscored by a children's choir singing "Creep." Something as good as that would have made a difference. And without it "the Facebook movie" would have been a niche thing too.

No one seems to be interested in Steve Jobs' stint as the founder and CEO of NeXT computers, even though it was probably the one time in his life when he had the most direct personal responsibility for running a company, designing its products and ensuring its success.

is that isaacson book worth reading?

His story is way boring compared to, I don't know, Stephen Hawking, Abraham Lincoln, or the members of NWA, to give three financially successful recent biopics.

second half (third?) of straight outta compton was p much excruciating but omg what a fucking relief (tho hardly unpredictable) that the nwa movie crushed the steve jobs movie(s)

He's the guy who managed the guys who made the iPhone/Toy Story is not a terribly exciting hook to most people. I suspect a Gates biopic would be more interesting, at least you'd have anti-trust shenanigans for drama.

http://book12.ru/photos/robbins/fe44c9c999d6261a34d14fa42171d611.jpg

the next Jobs movie will be about Steve Jobs in Hell watching all the movies about him and reviewing them

shavian

is that isaacson book worth reading?

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11:17 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

not really

i didn't think so, tbh, but it did seem like the only book i saw anyone reading for like five months after it came out

The first "act" is the best use of Fassbender's sourness I've ever seen, and Kate Winselt was unrecognizable (to me) for a few minutes until the Sorkinspeak coaxed out the Oscar begging. Sorkin's tics are so recognizable that I couldn't even hiss when he constructs the movie so that the hippie ex-girlfriend is a frivolous airhead for spending $1500 on aroma therapy or whatever while the misanthrope genius is saving the world from Walkmans.

Haven't seen this, and don't want to, but Tom Scharpling (on a recent Best Show) describing the films heated screaming matches between Fassbender and Daniel's over Super Bowl ads and Apple updates was hilarious.

Fassbender and Jeff Daniels yelling at each other is oddly compelling.

i love that scene--especially with the crosscutting between shouting matches at different times.

This is hagiography. I know our culture lionizes charismatic assholes but did they really need to show him being heroically protective of Woz?

Oh look, he's late for a keynote because he's trying to be a good parent. AYFKM

Marveling at Mr Soto's capsule review a few posts up. I don't need to see the film now.