He would fail even if he played himself.
I dont understand the complaints. As much as I can guess, I think its people taking his Kelso character of 7 seasons as him being the person, instead of the actor being the person.
I mean from a professional career level of acting and modeling his resume is pretty legendary.
After modeling for CK he became a superstar off of one role on a TV show? Thats pretty rare.
Then the retarded yet undeniably mass of appeal of Dude Wheres My Car he practically mastered the goofy yet attractive character type and had a huge fan base at the time.
Then he had a major 2nd wind with Punk'd which was very popular in the MTV era.
Then had a third kind of statement when he had the most views on Twitter for the longest time as it grew into being the biggest social network for some time.
I mean take it as a possitive thing when I say that from an acting standpoint that is pretty genius level capability already, in fact he is humble in most of his interviews. Acting as a character on a TV show is a superhuman effort from the perspective of the level of difficulty of "being a person in a place" and delivering lines is harder than being an engineer or doctor or anything even related to the film industry. Producers, writers, directors get paid in the thousands, and their job is considerably complex but actors get the biggest chunk and get paid millions. Thats why they get the big cookie, it takes a superhuman effort to do it.
So its hard to doubt a person who has achieved such things that if they really put their mind to something, they can achieve whatever they want. And clearly he is really passionate about the Steve Jobs legend, like many of us were, but he happened to be a person who has the logistical assets to not only see something many outside observers didn't, but also the psychological perspective and personal ability to relate to the master salesman charisma of Steve Jobs. All salesmen are generally the same in their mind and what drives them from a psychological perspective. Also all actors are master salesmen.
Frankly, look wise, Kutcher doesn't really reflect Jobs. Jobs has incredibly sharp eyes, not to mention mind. Charisma, and so on.
Considering he spent years playing a charismatic main sex symbol on show about the 70s, the same time SJ grew up in, its actually pretty congruent.
Did anyone see "Pirates of Silicon Valley"?
It was a class-B ish movie, but I think all of the main actors did very well.
Not just Gates & Jobs (Noah While), in fact, the movie is narrated by both
the Woz and Ballmer characters from the IBM and Apple sides of the story,
and they do great as well.
This movie was more about the history of computers, not so much Steve Jobs and his personal style.
I agree. Pirates was a closer representation of Jobs then this move will be. And even Pirates was not even close, they they knew it and made fun of it. This movie pretends to be 100% accurate when it's not even 50% accurate.
Chance of me ever watching this movie willingly? 0%.
Its not about accuracy of facts. Its more about the swag of his ability to sell people.
Whilst I would like the movie to do well at the box office, I don't care if it is a commercial success. I care if I love it or not. It is always going to be somewhat of a niche subject even if every one with an iPhone or iPod claimed to be upset when Steve died.
If the movie can transport me to to the same place that Isaacson's book did then it'll have a lasting impression on me. And I bet most on here feel the same.
Same here. It all depends on the details and I think if it lets me really feel some of the similar feelings reading the various biographies, and it makes some interesting commentary accurately on the essense of what made Steve so great, I think that will be something I will enjoy to see.
Kutcher. Talk about playing Jobs as much as you'd like. Doesn't make you a good actor. I can talk about playing Bill Gates in my Yorkshire accent.
There is nothing bad about any of his acting. Its just that, acting. And he can easily play effective characters. Hes also been in the acting game for over a decade now and has probably matured beyond whatever annoyed you about his perceived immaturity or whatever. When youre a celebrity for ten years you kind of meet a lot of people and expand your horizons and knowledge exponentially compared to the average person.
Also Studio 60 and the Newsroom. There are no guarantees regardless of who's behind a movie.
I think he will be very passionate and focused about it. He DID make Moneyball just recently.
why do you guys underestimate this film so much, i'm confused
, please elaborate.
Same here.
I don't underestimate the film as I, and everyone else, know absolutely
NOTHING about the film.
See Post# 55
I will say, just knowing Ashton Kutcher is the lead "actor" in the film immediately leads to underestimating of any possibility of the film having any cinematic value.
(May I be forgiven for using the words "Ashton Kutcher" and "actor" in the same sentence.)
I assure you acting is and isnt more and less complex than you make it. Its about making your body be in a moment, moment to moment, on command. He's fine as an actor. If its the type of acting he did, (the sitcom format) thats different. But he did also make The Butterfly Effect which was number one at the box office at the time and has a rather large fan base of people who still remember it and mention it to this day.
I keep hearing people describe sociopathic tendencies in Jobs, and then attempt to make them sound okay by justifying the man. He was successful in making needed changes to the industry, and I appreciate that, and I do worry that the industry will just go back go the default anti-user mentality without his pressuring to make stuff actually usable to normal folks, but I'll never worship the guy like so many people seem to. He followed the dollar bill like all other corporate guys (that's why pro apps/hardware have suffered), and his bad behavior toward others is well known; I see no reason to glorify or worship him.
I've zero interest in this film. I wish these Ashton Kutcher stories would cease. It's tiresome and disinteresting.
Those arent "evil" characteristics and should not be admonished. They are simply human traits. The glory comes from a number of many chronologically significant milestones past and present, beyond just the man, but also because of his unique genius which was at a level so deep, it DOES deserve to be glorified because its a beacon of excellence that inspires us all and is a pinnacle of human civilization. We can relate to it because its something that helps us all define ourselves and that is why it touches us so deeply.
This is a brilliant interview. Jobs was just 35 when this was conducted and he comes across with an incredible amount of intelligence and poise. Most noticeably, he seems modest (although you can see that he's proud of his prior accomplishments) and brilliant (you can see the wheels spinning as he answers each question). There's no anger whatsoever about his prior role of Apple. He talks about it as if he were still there. He only mentions NeXT a few times. This is not the legendary Jobs - the one who emits the Steve Jobs reality distortion field or the one who is incredibly impatient with unprepared or incompetent people. He's even dressed in business attire - this was obviously before he decided he could only wear jeans, turtlenecks and sneakers.
His predictions are dead-on except for two: the interviewer says that the computer will be become the radio and music player of the future and Jobs says that it won't be that. He also talks about networked email and how users receive "30 emails a day!" He didn't recognize how much we'd be plagued by hundreds of emails each day, never mind spam.
As for the Kutcher film, I'm no fan of him as an actor, but I think it's incredibly unfair to judge this movie without having seen it. It might suck big time, but you have to see it to make that evaluation. As for the negative comments about Kutcher talking about Jobs' walk, many actors use that technique to help define the character they're portraying. Anyone who has any familiarity with acting technique knows this.
Kutcher seems to have done a lot of preparation and took the role seriously. Whether all this will be on the screen is hard to say. He says he studied Jobs' speech patterns in both formal and informal contexts, but I've never heard Kutcher use a different voice in any of his acting roles. It has always seemed to me he was playing slight variations on the same character.
But again, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. If reviewers who I trust pan the film, I won't go see it, but if it gets decent reviews, I'm willing to give it a shot. But I think people have to manage their own expectations. He's not going to "be" Steve Jobs. I can think of only two film biographies where the performance was uncanny: Ben Kingsley as Ghandi and Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman in "Man on the Moon", a vastly underrated performance, IMO.
Considering the topic, I am EASILY able to give it the benefit of the doubt. In fact I have a feeling its going to really touch upon some very interesting things and for some reason I think Im gonna really enjoy it. I really do trust that Ashton Kutcher saw and loved all the same things about Steve Jobs, and what he represented, that I myself always loved about him.
