Danny Boyle Refers to 'Steve Jobs' Wide Release Plan as 'Arrogant'

[MacRumors]

Following an initial wave of laudatory reviews at a few film festivals in September, the new Steve Jobs movie earned only 7th-place during its debut box office weekend. The film's director, Danny Boyle, has given a reason behind its poor performance, calling the release strategy "arrogant" during a fundraising event for the annual Shuffle Festival in London (via Business Insider).

"We were arrogant to release it very wide, very quickly," the director said over the weekend. His remark refers to the somewhat hazy rollout plan for the film, which saw it premiere in just New York and Los Angeles on October 9 -- where it made a small, but impressive mark -- before going wide on October 23 and subsequently failing to impress. The initial longer-term plan for the movie saw a few more weeks of time spent rolling out to more select venues across the country, generating positive word of mouth, before expanding to a wide release closer to the end of the year and poised closer to the Oscar season.

The film's opening weekend predictions were estimated to be between $15 and $19 million, but Steve Jobs made just $7.3 million in its debut three-day weekend, gaining it the 7th-place slot at the box office. Boyle was noted as voicing hope for Apple's massive fanbase to create an event around the film, but after disappointing the first weekend, the studio decided to pull it from over 2,000 theaters across the United States, leaving the movie in about 300 theaters in total.

Article Link: Danny Boyle Refers to 'Steve Jobs' Wide Release Plan as 'Arrogant'

 

[senohpoxas88]

Ya, it was all about the way they rolled out the film, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't even close to factually accurate, that his wife asked everyone to boycott it, or that people who knew him said that this was nothing like the man he knew.

 

[pwnediphoneuser]

Yep, definitely why it failed.

/sarcasm

 

[opeter]

Ya, it was all about the way they rolled out the film, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't even close to factually accurate, that his wife asked everyone to boycott it, or that people who knew him said that this was nothing like the man he knew.

So what?

 

[aajeevlin]

Do all the movies use this sort of release strategy? I have no idea. I usually assumed movies comes out in majority of the movie theaters all at once (besides the selected previews, but those are not public release).

This sounds like one of those dog ate my homework sort of excuse. Also it looks like to me he is trying very hard not to care. Just take it as fail, why so much excuses, I don't get it.

 

[smorgo]

They were never going to be able to make a film about him that satisfied those closest to him.

It painted a picture; one that was not unkind. I enjoyed it a lot and would have been mighty peeved if it hadn't been released at my local cinema.

 

[keysofanxiety]

Not sure who this film was aimed at anyway. Pirates of Silicon Valley was a great film because it was pretty accurate and mainly just a story explaining what happened, rather than being a dramatisation of his life. It's ... it's a pretty lame idea, let's be honest. Even as an Apple fan I cringe at the idea of going to see a film like this.

 

[BarmyGnome]

Danny Boyle is the definition of 'arrogant'.

 

[mdridwan47]

It was a good movie.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Ya, it was all about the way they rolled out the film, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't even close to factually accurate, that his wife asked everyone to boycott it, or that people who knew him said that this was nothing like the man he knew.

None of that matters. The Social Network was similar in all regards, I think, but still hugely successful.

I think the problem with this movie was it wasn't any good. I'm really confused about the critics who said they liked it - this was just a confusing whirlwind of a movie. They tried making you care about 10 different relationships, giving each 3 different 3 minute scenes spread throughout the movie. You ultimately come away caring about none of them, because none of them got the attention they deserved, plus you couldn't keep track of them.

I can't even remember the names of half the people you were supposed to care about, and I imagine I'm more familiar with these characters than the average moviegoer.

I remember some critics said it was like an action movie. I agree. This was exactly like the Avengers - the plot was so convoluted and poorly thought out that very little made sense. Unlike the Avengers, it couldn't fall back on "Well, at least it looks cool."

 

[Waxhead138]

And, moving along, many here will soon be happy that virtually no more "Steve Jobs Movie" articles will be seen. Aside from when it hits Itunes / other streaming services, I think these articles are soon done.

 

[Waxhead138]

None of that matters. The Social Network was similar in all regards, I think, but still hugely successful.

I think the problem with this movie was it wasn't any good. I'm really confused about the critics who said they liked it - this was just a confusing whirlwind of a movie. They tried making you care about 10 different relationships, giving each 3 different 3 minute scenes spread throughout the movie. You ultimately come away caring about none of them, because none of them got the attention they deserved, plus you couldn't keep track of them.

I can't even remember the names of half the people you were supposed to care about, and I imagine I'm more familiar with these characters than the average moviegoer.

I remember some critics said it was like an action movie. I agree. This was exactly like the Avengers - the plot was so convoluted and poorly thought out that very little made sense. Unlike the Avengers, it couldn't fall back on "Well, at least it looks cool."

Sounds like the same model from "The Newsroom." (Also Sorkin, for any that haven't watched it.) Difference is the Newsroom played out in 26 one hour episodes, so things actually had time to develop.

As a point of note, I haven't seen this movie yet. Just seems like the parallel could be there, both coming from Sorkin.

 

[CEmajr]

More likely failed because we've already seen this movie before. What does it do that Pirates of Silicon doesn't? Or the Kutcher movie? I had no interest in seeing the same storyline again and never bothered checking for this movie.

Maybe they could've covered the iPhone or iPad launch, venture into some ground that the other movies didn't. May have generated slightly more interest.

 

[BillyBobBongo]

Here in the Netherlands 'The Hurt Locker' wasn't even going to make it in to the cinemas, it wasn't until after all the award nominations came in that a release date was finally chosen. To be fair it wasn't really until after the Academy Awards ceremony that copies of it really started to appear in cinemas. I think the same will apply for this particular film.

If Fassbender ends up getting an Oscar nomination for his role in this then more folks will be interested in checking it out, so on that part I think a release closer to Oscar season would have been a much wiser choice.

Summer blockbusters sell themselves, a film like this requires a much more strategic approach.

 

[69Mustang]

Personally, I think this movie was destined for failure.

1. Feature subject with limited mass market appeal.
2. Give less than flattering portrayal of subject when the intended audience (Apple fans) would like something more kind to Steve's memory.
3. Profit

These types of movies are rarely ever commercially successful. It probably should have stayed in limited release or been featured on the art house circuit.

 

[drumcat]

What killed it was when Cook called it a money-grab on Colbert. I know it 100% changed my mind.

 

[GadgetDon]

None of that matters. The Social Network was similar in all regards, I think, but still hugely successful.

The difference is that the general public had no idea who Mark Zuckerberg was, or how Facebook came to be, and nobody else was telling that story. So Social Network was fresh, interesting. The general public thinks they know who Steve Jobs is (lots of different views, but pretty much everyone has one) and between the book, the other picture, and all the coverage from his death, it's a story often told.

Then it didn't help that there was controversy about the truthfulness of the movie, both of details and of character. So it was a movie about stuff we know, and they made stuff up. Of course it tanked.

In 10, 20 years, a great and successful Steve Jobs movie can be made. Give it some perspective of time, and let the story fade in the mind's of the public. Now, it was a foolish decision to make it and I'm not surprised it and the other one didn't do well.

 

[miknos]

A good strategy would be to add zombies and explosions. And some boobs too.

 

[AFEPPL]

Ya, it was all about the way they rolled out the film, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't even close to factually accurate, that his wife asked everyone to boycott it, or that people who knew him said that this was nothing like the man he knew.

Or more likely that no one cares about the topic anymore.

 

[opeter]

In 10, 20 years, a great and successful Steve Jobs movie can be made. Give it some perspective of time, and let the story fade in the mind's of the public. Now, it was a foolish decision to make it and I'm not surprised it and the other one didn't do well.

Great writing! I fully agree.

 

[scottishwildcat]

Ya, it was all about the way they rolled out the film, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't even close to factually accurate, that his wife asked everyone to boycott it, or that people who knew him said that this was nothing like the man he knew.

Nobody involved ever claimed factual accuracy, it was only ever meant to be a three act drama base on Isaacson's book. Also, several people who knew Steve at that time -- including Woz -- have said that broadly speaking it was a reasonably accurate character sketch. It's mainly people who knew him more recently who've spoken out against it, some without (at their own admission) ever even having seen the movie.

 

[macduke]

Boyle was noted as voicing hope for Apple's massive fanbase to create an event around the film, but after disappointing the first weekend, the studio decided to pull it from over 2,000 theaters across the United States, leaving the movie in about 300 theaters in total.

Sure, it's our fault for not rallying the troops. Who does this guy think he is? We're not a bunch of idiots. It didn't take long to figure out this movie was an inaccurate pile that doesn't even focus on the interesting parts of this story.

 

[NMBob]

In 10, 20 years, a great and successful Steve Jobs movie can be made. Give it some perspective of time, and let the story fade in the mind's of the public.

Then they can just re-release this pack of lies. Maybe that's their plan.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

In 10, 20 years, a great and successful Steve Jobs movie can be made. Give it some perspective of time, and let the story fade in the mind's of the public. Now, it was a foolish decision to make it and I'm not surprised it and the other one didn't do well.

Your first portion, about the different between how everyone already knows a good deal about Jobs, but few knew about Zuckerberg, is a great point.

I just wanted to point out that the movie only covers from 1984 - 1998. The movie came out 17 years after the story it's telling ended. There's been plenty of time for reflection on this story. I don't think movies made in 10, 20 years will be able to do this better.

 

[duffman9000]

Ya, it was all about the way they rolled out the film, it couldn't have anything to do with the fact that it wasn't even close to factually accurate, that his wife asked everyone to boycott it, or that people who knew him said that this was nothing like the man he knew.

His wife saying no is what did it for me.