Do you think Cook isn't an opportunist either? Or are we just going to talk about Sorkin?
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 Apologizes for Blasting Tim Cook's 'Opportunistic' Comment
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do you think Cook isn't an opportunist either? Or are we just going to talk about Sorkin?
Sorkin is the one having the self-inflicted PR meltdown after falsely accusing someone of engaging in child slave labor. Why not talk about him?
Not someone. A company. And not self-inflicted. How anyone can think Tim wasn't talking about all movies about Jobs coming out is beyond me. It was inclusive of Sorkin's work. Something he put time and energy about. Do I think Sorkin was harsh - yes. But he's since apologized. He was speaking in hyperbole with his rant. If someone honestly believed his comment at face value, well - that says more about the person making that interpretation.
Tim could have been more politically correct and just said he hasn't seen it or doesn't really care to comment because his memories of Jobs are first hand. Or a multitude of things. He didn't - he was dismissive. That was his right and his opinion. But let's not act like Sorkin has no right to be offended by his comment.
Well of course it is beyond you, what a surprise. Ultimately it's irrelevant though as it doesn't change the fact that he has not addressed Sorkin or his movie personally, nor has he said that all of the film makers are being opportunistic. Those things are up to your personal interpretation, which takes me back to the beginning of my post...
Yes totally, because he's demanding for those movies to be banned. I assume "Jobs" & co. aren't available on iTunes then?? Oh wait... *facepalm*
Your opinion that it's irrelevant. Sorkin, as a creator of one of the movies within a group about Steve Jobs is included. Tim didn't say - all of these movies except sorkin's are opportunistic.
And I am sure that if someone included you or your work in a similar vain - by name or not, you would just let it roll off your back and assume it wasn't about you too. /sarcasm
Again, he did neither address the movie specifically nor criticize all of the movies globally. A pathetic "sarcasm" tag doesn't really change those facts.
Ok. Whatever you say. Clearly you know everything and exactly what Tim meant. Have a great night.
Wrong. The quote was
This is clearly referring personally to Tim Cook because he's the one who called these movies opportunistic.
Someone forced Sorkin to accuse Tim of using child slave labor? He's not in control of the words coming out of his mouth?
Here is Tim's statement:
He said he hadn't seen them. This is a very general statement and does not address Sorkin directly at all. Sorkin stuck his foot in his pompous mouth and now he doesn't like the way it tastes.
I'm just going by what he actually said, you're the one feeling free to read things into his words with the expected conclusion
. You have a great night as well.On point one - I concede. You're right.
No - it wasn't self-inflicted because Tim's comment could definitely be interpreted to refer to any/all Jobs movies - of which, Sorkin was one of the creators of.
Tim's statement could have ended before his dismissive statement. He didn't need to add the comment about them being opportunistic - or that he hated that. Or that it's not a great part of this world. By doing so - he left himself open to be attacked by someone close to the art he was dismissing.
Tim had every right to state his opinion. What I find rather silly are those on here that believe Sorkin had no right to respond. Or that Tim's comment wasn't even remotely obnoxious or condescending or whatever word you want to use. For the CEO of a company that prides itself on craftsmanship, design, spending time to get things perfect - to "easily" dismiss someone's labor of love is a bit not-so-nice.
Again - he could have stated everything he did and left the last part off. But he didn't.
Cook is the CEO of a large, well known corporation. He has lots of influence in popular culture. He hasn't seen the movie and yet he denounced it. That'll stop people seeing it and it is exactly like burning books in the sense that people won't see the art that someone has created.
It's all together a shameful episode for Cook.
Irrelevant. Sorkin chose to say what he said in response. He could have said he disagreed or Jobs is an important historical figure or something, but he chose to accuse Tim of using child labor.
I don't have a problem that he responded. I have a problem with the way he responded: with false accusations of illegal deeds.
Tim wanted to say he didn't like to see people profiting off his dead friend's name/life. I think he did so about as gently as possible.
Tim said what he was thinking. You apparently aren't capable of listening.
Professionally?? Yea duh. He's in charge of the most valuable corporation in history. It's his fiduciary responsibility to be professionally opportunistic. And btw Cook PERSONALLY doesn't employ ANY underage children in factories in China. Get it?
So Personally? No.
Sorkin IMO is opportunistic personally AND professionally. It's his nature to be so.
Maybe you missed the whole part where Cook NEVER mentioned ANYONE PERSONALLY and never singled out one project, book, documentary SEPARATELY..
Yea so it's all Sorkin and Sorkin alone.
Dude who's saying Sorkin "had no right to respond". Maybe the clouds from the bong on the table is clouding your ability to read people's remarks clearly.
Bottom line -- Sorkin PERSONALLY attacked TIM COOK... Singled him out... It's all caps so you can clearly see my and others points. You can't argue that SORKIN used a really LOW BLOW in a PERSONAL attack on Cook and Cook as the chairman and CEO of Apple...
Sorkins remarks were PERSONAL IN NATURE, OFFENSIVE, UNWARRANTED - UNPROVOKED - BELOW THE BELT, UNPROFESSIONAL, ETC ETC ETC ETC.
What the heck has Cook got to be sorry for ???
NOTHING.
He has not denounced the movie at all. He didn't comment on the quality of it. He didn't address Sorkin OR the movie directly.
He did give a personal statement on the situation of several Jobs movies being made right after Steve Jobs death. His involvement and history with Steve Jobs justifies personal comments without doubt and I'm glad that he doesn't follow the (irrelevant) demands of people like you to give up any personal opinion in public, even if his speeches will be turned against him like it has happened over the last few pages here.
Is "walk back" an American way of saying "take back"? I feel like I'm in the twilight zone, having never seen anybody use those words to describe taking back a comment, and yet now I've seen it three times on one page.
I still don't feel right with these movies trying to portray Steve Jobs. I did enjoy Pirates of Silicon Valley, but these other movies just seem to be trying too hard. Maybe this movie is good? I don't know, and I don't know if I can bring myself to watch it. It feels too disrespectful to the man that is Steve Jobs, a man that was a leader and inspiration for so many of us. A man that had vision and could see far into the future, and held gold standards for everything. Just imagine what our world would be like if Apple had not made a comeback and set these standards on such a large scales, getting the attention of the rest of the tech world, and giving them something to reach for.
I still don't feel right with these movies trying to portray Steve Jobs. I did enjoy Pirates of Silicon Valley, but these other movies just seem to be trying too hard. Maybe this movie is good? I don't know, and I don't know if I can bring myself to watch it. It feels too disrespectful to the man that is Steve Jobs, a man that was a leader and inspiration for so many of us. A man that had vision and could see far into the future, and held gold standards for everything. Just imagine what our world would be like if Apple had not made a comeback and set these standards on such a large scales, getting the attention of the rest of the tech world, and giving them something to reach for.
There's a difference between being cold and being brutal. Steve was brutal. No holds barred. He'd fire someone on the spot if he didn't think they were a good fit for Apple, and Apple needed that type of leadership.