Steve Jobs: Sorkin's Apple Joint

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.