I like the idea. I think it would be cool to have one before the Macintosh is released though, like a young, YOUNG, smelly, hippie Steve Jobs pitching an Apple II or something.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs Biopic: Three 30-Minute Scenes Taking Place Before Three Product Launches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I am a huge Sorkin fan and this format intrigues me. It ill make for a much more entertaining movie then doing a 30 year life and times piece. Early Sorkin has chosen to capture jobs and not just tell his life story.
----------
A 100 scene movie with a minute given to major points is just a bad movie. As others have mentioned and Sorkin clearly said such projects do not make good films. Jobs has done too much in his life to adequately tell the story in 120 minutes. So Sorkin will target three defining moments, flesh them out, tie them together and deliver the essence of jobs. It is not a history lesson it is a movie designed to entertain and tell a story.
----------
A 100 scene movie with a minute given to major points is just a bad movie. As others have mentioned and Sorkin clearly said such projects do not make good films. Jobs has done too much in his life to adequately tell the story in 120 minutes. So Sorkin will target three defining moments, flesh them out, tie them together and deliver the essence of jobs. It is not a history lesson it is a movie designed to entertain and tell a story.
I'll stick to my so-called stupid opinion, thankyouverymuch.
Of course Jobs probably wouldn't have thought very highly of a tv movie that he didn't approve of.
Hell, he had to approve of the Walter Issacson book after all.Don't get me wrong, I'm a Steve Jobs fan and consider him as one of my personal heroes. I would expect a telling of his life and his mindset from time to time rather than what happens half an hour before a Stevenote.
Don't worry I got this joke. lol
----------
I'm actually excited about this format. Could be very interesting and a new style of story telling in movies.
What you're saying still makes no sense and this "real time" (ugh, I'm tired of this term already) aspect has nothing to do with documentaries.
What's being described for Aaron Sorkin's approach is like the television show "24" or Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope". In an episode of 24, there are no jumps in time (ignore the commercial breaks). An hour of the show represents an hour passing in the world of that show's characters.
This no. This is not something that describes any documentary that I can think of.
Veering off -- I think that this is a pretty exciting approach for the film. It sounds like a simple approach toward a dialogue driven character study, with Jobs probably being the only character to appear in all three acts.
It sounds minimal and simply designed in order to deliver a (hopefully) satisfying finished product that drives straight to the point of what it wants to say. I'm pretty sure that was the intention, and I think it's a great idea.
Okay then, read the second of my posts. I agree, the real time concept is overworked to the point of being meaningless, that being the point. Even Sorkin isn't really talking about an actual real time film, but of three long scenes, which is hardly the same thing. It's just a buzzword, which appears to work perfectly, since we seem to be buzzing about it.
I was thinking of "Rope" as being possibly the only film to ever attempt to capture the impression of having been made all in one take in real time, though in fact it wasn't, if only because such a thing was impossible then.
I hate to bag on Sorkin as he's done some great work......but this sounds like utter ****.
30 minutes in real time of steve before a product launch? How does that tell us anything about his life that viewers might cling to and gain a better understanding of what made him "steve".
Sounds like a bomb waiting to happen.
30 minutes in real time of steve before a product launch? How does that tell us anything about his life that viewers might cling to and gain a better understanding of what made him "steve".
Sounds like a bomb waiting to happen.
The class of documentaries known as "Cinema Verité" or "Direct Cinema" is known for taking place in real time, and portraying real life as accurately and unobtrusively as possible. Shots are really quite long most of the time, as much as 10 minutes or more.
In all fairness, they can cover a relatively long period of time with cuts in between, but it's composed of sections of real time, much like I would expect Jobs' three product launches to be.
An example is "Don't Look Back," a chronicle by D.A. Pennebaker of Bob Dylan's 1965 tour of Great Britain.
I'm in a documentary film class now...
Original Mac, NeXT and iPod would be very good choices as they are not so much the most important products per se, but they are the products related with Jobs' personal development. This is a biopic after all. The Mac was a hippie product, the NeXT was more a vision/ego product than even the Mac and the iPod was the first product that signaled his 'consumer experience' focus. There are also other personal things that come to a max around these products.
----------
Because it will be 30 minutes of interaction with people around him. That interaction, both style and content defines the man even more than a storyline where you see things 'happen' (like meeting his wife, etc.)
Thank you for saying it for me! When will the geeks get it that technical expertise in one subject doesn't really translate to any other area in life? Especially art!
And since when was a biopic not detailing someone's life? It's just in a not-so-used not-quite-as-boring format as most others. I for one am looking forward to it.
Agreed. I think the old Ive exhibition in Germany would have been more interesting.
I agree with the young Jobs bit.
I think Steve said at his address at Stanford how he kind of bummed around staying with different people, getting meals from soup kitchens, dropping in to random classes. But he said some of those classes he took really helped him make the Mac (like calligraphy for knowing about font typesetting, etc).
I think that's a really interesting area to explore.
Thats why only pop up books and scratch and sniff for me
You're scratching it wrong.
Me too, but I meant is it the same one they were talking about a few months ago, with the story of Steve's life and stuff?
You can't modify a superlative. It is commonly done (e.g. "very unique"), but it's still a no-no.
Yes, the grammar pedant is here.
(I don't like the commonly used phrase...I don't think the word "Nazi" should be used casually)
Right, but I think even more to the point if the single-camera, no-cut technique is used in this film, I can promise it will be called a "documentary style" film. If it isn't, it's unlikely that many will read the result as "real time." The hazard in either case is that the long scenes will be dismissed as a novelty approach (the fate of "Rope" when it was released, incidentally).
FWIW, the limitation on any unedited movie scene is ten minutes since that's the length of a single film cartridge. Hitchcock got around that constraint in "Rope" with the strategic use of blackouts, but he still altered the camera angle several times in the movie. I suppose this limitation would not apply to movies shot digitally, but it was an important issue in the "old days."
In this case, the problem goes beyond modifying a superlative, since the phrase "rather unique" is an oxymoron. That said, you could get away with this if the intention was to describe something that is very scarce or nearly one-of-a-kind, but you'd have to be clear about it.