Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs Biopic: Three 30-Minute Scenes Taking Place Before Three Product Launches

[Vertigo50]

I will withhold judgement until I see how it actually plays out, but on the surface, this sounds exceedingly boring. The whole of Steve Jobs' life is to be contained in these three scenes? Now, if there are lots of flashbacks and things intertwined, it could make for a good structure. We'll have to wait and see.

[Bill Killer]

Originally Posted by iMikeT

This sounds terrible. I'll stick with Pirates of Silicon Valley being better than this.

This is stupid. Pirates of Silicon Valley is a mediocre TV movie that even Steve Jobs didn't think very highly of.

[kralnor]

Originally Posted by rusty2192

That sounds good to me. I really enjoyed The Social Network and was really pulled into it.

When is this movie supposed to premiere?

The format of the social network? That's the format of basically every movie made. The reason you were pulled into it and enjoyed it is because he's a great writer.

[britboyj]

Scene 1: Apple Mac
Scene 2: Original iMac
Scene 3: iPhone

[anthonymoody]

Originally Posted by extradryny

I'm intrigued, mostly because I agree with Sorkin on the trouble with cradle-to-grave biopics. They only seem to work when the the character is fictional, like Forrest Gump or Jesus Christ.

I'm not remotely religious but you do realize that Jesus Christ was an actual person, right? The Roman Empire was one of the most meticulous administrative bureaucracies of all time with record keeping astonishing for its day (Nazi Germany was similar in this regard). The birth, death, and major events in the life of the man Jesus Christ are documented, amply, in original source material. To be clear, I am not saying he rose from the dead. I am simply saying that he was born and ultimately crucified under Pontius Pilate. Real people. Real events. Non fiction.

Originally Posted by WeegieMac

I just can't help feel that having it feature solely on three product launches belittles the work Isaacson put into writing the book and just tosses aside so much more about Jobs that could be shown on screen.

To base a movie, based on a biography, around nothing more than product launches and backstage action just seems like a huge waste of some fantastic source material.

What about Sculley? What about NeXT? What about Pixar? What about his close bond with Ive? Do we really have to see three keynotes reenacted as nothing more than backstage footage?

It's a classic three act structure, and don't worry - Sorkin is brilliant and his best work IMO is when the dialog gets frenzied and fast paced. He will have plenty of opportunity to cram a **** ton into this structure.

Originally Posted by MacFly123

Apparently he said.

It seems crazy to me to not have the iPhone launch in there! That was arguably Steve's most iconic product presentation ever and is when the new era he had always been working toward actually got traction and started changing all the past of wintel!

I am excited for this. I really hope it ends up being good!

My first reaction too, though the iPod was what really put apple - and Jobs - back on the map. The original iMac gave apple life and a bit of breathing room, but by itself would never have been a long term game changer. The iPod changed everything for apple, jobs, and the music industry. By many meausres Jobs and Apple were already "on top of the world" when the iPhone was introduced.

Originally Posted by Evan_11

I don't doubt that Sorkin is being truthful about the three part structure. I do kind of suspect the "real time" nature of it. He's going to have to cram a lot of extraneous background information into these scenes to make it understandable to general audiences. Otherwise he's going to be relying on flashbacks to tell the story. Of course using flashbacks means it's no longer "real time".

See above. Sorkin is a master. He can do it and do it well.

Btw I produce films for a living.

[NT1440]

Coming from the man that made the masterpiece that is The West Wing, bring it. I can't wait.

[IJ Reilly]

Telling a story in real time is hardly unique. These films are called documentaries, and lots of non-documentary films have adopted the documentary format. This may be a good film because Sorkin knows how to write screenplays, but not because he's invented some new approach.

[OrangeSVTguy]

I'd rather see real movie of SJ himself before events(if there are any) than some actor that's going to try and display what he himself thinks SJ went through. I'd like to see the genuine expression and emotions of what made that man a true genius.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

Telling a story in real time is hardly unique. These films are called documentaries,

I agree with your main premise about this not being new, but as a documentary nutjob, very few I've ever watched are in "real time".

[IJ Reilly]

Originally Posted by NT1440

I agree with your main premise about this not being new, but as a documentary nutjob, very few I've ever watched are in "real time".

It depends on your definition of real time. A documentary may (or may not) present a scene without editing, the way it happened from start to finish. That would be real time, insofar as that event is concerned. It could then string a bunch of events together to tell a larger story. We could debate whether the result is real time, or something else. Either way, by a strict definition, the movie Sorkin is talking about is not real time. Whatever he call it, this three, 30-minute scene idea is just a hook he's using to give his script a greater feeling of immediacy.

[Mike Valmike]

Originally Posted by extricated

"Drama is tension versus obstacle ... I need to find that event and I will. I just don't know what it is" - Sorkin

Sounds like the making of a classic.

This is the essence of screenwriting. It applies to every line of every scene of every story. Sorkin does what he does so well because he understands this.

Here was David Mamet's take on it:

"Every scene must answer three questions: Who wants what? What happens if he doesn't get it? And Why Now?"

Biopics tend to suck because biographical narratives are not dramatic narratives, in this respect. Fiction can be crafted so that this works every time. Of course, the avant-garde screenwriting intelligentsia out there think they're above it all, which is why their movies are naturalistic pieces of crap not worth paying to see.

Let's pick a scene completely out of the blue from a movie and see if it answers the questions. You can do this exercise any time, watching anything, and you'll find that the degree to which it answers the questions is usually correlated to how good the story is.

Clarice Starling introducing herself to Hannibal Lecter. She wants his help in finding Buffalo Bill. If she doesn't get it, she won't find the Senator's daughter. If she doesn't find Buffalo Bill soon, the Senator's daughter may die. Lecter wants Starling's help in getting out. If he doesn't get it, he will miss an all-too-infrequent chance to escape or at least better his condition. If not now, he doesn't know when his next chance, if any, might be. Yet her fatal flaw is that she is afraid she will fail and isn't enough of a poker face to prevent Lecter from figuring it out, while his fatal flaw is that his psychosis drives him to play mental games with Clarice because of that perception rather than being cooperative to improve his chances. Both characters have to grow in order to overcome the obstacles before them, but mostly the protagonist, Clarice. What a fantastic scene, and drama coming from both sides, in full conflict. And it works.

[wlow3]

I think the quote is "intention versus obstacles," not "tension versus obstacles."

Also, I wonder what Jobs typically did for those 30 minutes before his product launch -- go over his notes?

The one when Bill Gates invested in Apple, supposedly he was negotiating with him on the phone right before the keynote. That would be different.

I wonder what his "want" will be for each act. It has to be something other than putting on a good keynote.

[louis Fashion]

If it is anything like NEWSROOM, I will pass.

----------

QUOTE: I'm not remotely religious but you do realize that Jesus Christ was an actual person, right? The Roman Empire was one of the most meticulous administrative bureaucracies of all time with record keeping astonishing for its day (Nazi Germany was similar in this regard). The birth, death, and major events in the life of the man Jesus Christ are documented, amply, in original source material. To be clear, I am not saying he rose from the dead. I am simply saying that he was born and ultimately crucified under Pontius Pilate. Real people. Real events. Non fiction. END QUOTE.

I did not know the JC was a actual person. I have often wondered, I mean the whole story sounds rather unlikely, virgin birth, the Dali painting of the ascension comes to mind, wow is that art or not? Was his name really Jesus Christ the son of Mr. and Mrs. Christ? I wonder why none of my Jewish friends have Christ as a last name? Oh well live and learn.

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by Mykbibby

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Tom Cruise is the perfect choice to play Steve Jobs.

Before you go off on me saying I'm crazy, think about it. No, REALLY think about it. He's perfect.

I have to agree. Especially compared with the moronic train wreck called Ashton Kutcher.

[menithings]

Intriguing. I was hoping Sorkin wouldn't go down a traditional narritive route so I'm encouraged that he's doing something original structurally. Looks like he's focusing on three defining public events in Job's carreer path, each of which have him in a very different emotional (and physical) state. This'll be an incredible role for the lead actor. Much prefer something daring and original over the usual biopic approach, which we'll get with the Kutcher version anyway.

[LaDirection]

What a stupid ****ing concept.

[extricated]

Originally Posted by Mike Valmike

This is the essence of screenwriting. It applies to every line of every scene of every story. Sorkin does what he does so well because he understands this.

Totally agree with you, sir.
It was my poor attempt at sarcasm, mainly focused on the statement that Sorkin hadn't quite found his "tension" yet.

I trust he'll find it, but it struck me as funny.
It was like he was saying, "Here's what makes a good movie; however, I haven't found those elements in this project yet".

[you people smh]

Originally Posted by Vertigo50

I will withhold judgement until I see how it actually plays out, but on the surface, this sounds exceedingly boring. The whole of Steve Jobs' life is to be contained in these three scenes? Now, if there are lots of flashbacks and things intertwined, it could make for a good structure. We'll have to wait and see.

And "The Social Network" was simply one scene depicting a deposition.... Sorkin doesn't screw up much.

[Topher15]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

Telling a story in real time is hardly unique. These films are called documentaries, and lots of non-documentary films have adopted the documentary format.

Name a documentary that takes place in real time.

[PNutts]

Originally Posted by studio¹³¹

Robert Redford is looking tan.

Darn. You beat me to it. I was going to give him an 8 on the tan scale: Marilyn Manson being 0 and George Hamilton a 10.

[chambord]

Originally Posted by anthonymoody

I'm not remotely religious but you do realize that Jesus Christ was an actual person, right? The Roman Empire was one of the most meticulous administrative bureaucracies of all time with record keeping astonishing for its day (Nazi Germany was similar in this regard). The birth, death, and major events in the life of the man Jesus Christ are documented, amply, in original source material. To be clear, I am not saying he rose from the dead. I am simply saying that he was born and ultimately crucified under Pontius Pilate. Real people. Real events. Non fiction.



It's a classic three act structure, and don't worry - Sorkin is brilliant and his best work IMO is when the dialog gets frenzied and fast paced. He will have plenty of opportunity to cram a **** ton into this structure.



My first reaction too, though the iPod was what really put apple - and Jobs - back on the map. The original iMac gave apple life and a bit of breathing room, but by itself would never have been a long term game changer. The iPod changed everything for apple, jobs, and the music industry. By many meausres Jobs and Apple were already "on top of the world" when the iPhone was introduced.



See above. Sorkin is a master. He can do it and do it well.

Btw I produce films for a living.

Hi. Please link to this "documentation" of the birth of Jesus Christ.

[Topher15]

Originally Posted by anthonymoody

The Roman Empire was one of the most meticulous administrative bureaucracies of all time with record keeping astonishing for its day (Nazi Germany was similar in this regard). The birth, death, and major events in the life of the man Jesus Christ are documented, amply, in original source material.

Really? What original Roman source material is this?

We have no such documentation. What we have are non-contempoary, non-eyewitness, anonomous sources: St Paul and the first gospel, Mark. The other three gospels all derive from or otherwise use Mark's gospel and so are not reliably independent sources. Outside the Bible we have short, questionable and otherwise unreliable recordings (Josephus, Tacticus). They are unreliable because by the time they appear the story of Jesus would likely have been disseminated enough to make these sources simply repeatings of a growing oral tradition (which itself grew from Paul/Mark).

[TechnoLawyer]

Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore

That's not a biopic, it's a triopic.

It should be quadopic. The iPhone 1 or iPad 2 launch should be included, the first because of its importance or the latter because it was Steve's last major keynote (I think WWDC 2011 was his last).

[ladeer]

Originally Posted by frayne182

Sounds terrible.


Make it in the format Social Network is and make it dramatic.

In this clip you see, it seems to suck until 7:30 into the 8:00 long clip then u see what Aaron did there.

I too am afraid that a lot of good stories about his life would be missing, but you must understand this, he is Aaron Sorkin the best story teller/screen writer. Unless you own and watch multiple times over every episode of West Wing and Newsroom, please take my advise here because I simply know Aaron's style. He always sell short but completely blow you out of the water when he delivers. He gave me some of the best TV moments in my life, for example the last scene of second episode of the second season of West Wing or the first scene of Newsroom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=4jG6aL-V1So

Also, as in the first two episodes of second season of West Wing, you could tell a very long and touching story (Bartlett's presidential primary) through flashback. 30 minutes in real world could include flash backs (u r day dreaming about a moment 20 years ago). Furthermore, I doubt the movie would be only 90 mins long cuz all his TV episode is 1 hour and social network movie was also longer.

[BGrifter]

I'm more optimistic about the Sorkin version than "Dude, Where's My MacBook?".