'Jobs' Makes $6.7 Million in Opening Weekend, Below Distributor Projections

[MacDav]

First of all, I actually enjoyed the movie in spite of what the critics said. While Ashton Kutcher is far from Sir Lawrence Olivier, there are a lot of worse actors in Hollywood, and the movie itself was very interesting, especially with respect to the dynamics between Steve and the Apple board in the mid 80s and again in the late 90s when he returned. While many details and conversations may have been inaccurate, the GIST of the movie was very accurate, even when comparing it to the known facts that are out there (from Isaacson's book as well as "Pirates of Silicon Valley", for example).

Meanwhile, Sorkin's screenplay consists of THREE 30 MINUTE SCENES IN REAL TIME, BACKSTAGE BEFORE PRODUCT LAUNCHES?!? And that is considered to be a better way to show a biography? I mean, I get the whole artsy-fartsy thing, and Sorkin snorts all kinds of mind altering drugs, and it's "thinking different" and all that crap, but seriously? Did Sorkin even READ Walter Isaacson's book? That is not at all how the book told the story!! And does anyone think that movie is going to be able to capture Jobs' personality and everything he did in 3 scenes in real time?!?!

It would be one thing if he were taking the non-linear approach of using the product launches to have flashbacks to the 1970s, etc., thus actually showing Jobs' life. But I'm not sure I'm interested re-watching Steve Jobs launch the Mac, the Next Cube and the iPod. I know, you're all just itching to give me the no-longer-available "thumbs down", because I didn't tow the party line and bash Ashton Kutcher while praising Aaron Sorkin. But I think his interpretation of Walter Isaacson's book SUCKS, and this method of telling a great man's life story in 3 real-time half hour scenes is ridiculous.

Well, that's my two cents. I think if some of you people can forget "Dude, Where's My Car?" and "That 70's Show" for two hours and just go in with an open mind, you may actually enjoy this "Jobs" movie more than you think...particularly if you're an already knowledgeable Apple enthusiast. And I think that's a forgone conclusion if you're reading and posting on the MacRumors Forum.

P.S. The reason Woz hated it is because he was portrayed as a minor player in the Apple saga, at least following the Apple II. Plus Josh Gad is a fat clown, and Woz wasn't even fat until the past 10 or 15 years. I would have hated it too if Josh Gad were playing me!

Saying: "There are a lot of worse actors in Hollywood" is not much of an endorsement for poor Ashton, He wants respect but he just can't get any. Oh well, I don't feel too bad for him he's a Multi-millonaire after all. The key to a great movie is a great screenplay, without that as your foundation it doesn't really matter how good the acting or directing is. I will probably see this when it's on Netflix. It will be fun to watch knowing it's not costing me any extra money.
PS... The Sorkin script may not be a traditional linear style biography, but I can guarantee you it will be way better written.

 

[MacDav]

Sucks that he dies at the end...

Clever but not true.
Actually, from the reviews I've read the movie ends after Steve Introduces the first iPod. So he doesn't die at the end of the movie. It does suck that at the end we all die.

 

[Night Spring]

I think THE IDEA of translating Walter Isaacson's book into 3 real-time scenes, all taking place at product launches, is an absurd idea and does not at all represent what Isaacson's book was all about. Now, if you read Isaacson's book (like I did), I'm sure you'll agree that the 56 years of Steve Jobs' life detailed in the 656 page text will be very difficult to convey in 3 product launches. Will the movie suck? Hard to say. Will it convey the same story presented in the book? Very unlikely. Can I give a "review" of the movie without actually seeing it? Of course not. So, for you sticklers out there, THIS IS NOT A REVIEW. This is my opinion of the concept, detailed by Sorkin himself, of writing a movie consisting of only 3 real-time scenes as a legitimate way of putting Walter Isaacson's book on the silver screen.

Obviously, Sorkin isn't trying to tell the same story as the book -- I mean, the whole book would be too long to do justice to it in a single movie, isn't it? I think the three product launches are intended to highlight three points of time in Jobs' life / Apple history, and if done skillfully enough, will hopefully outline or hint at the entire complex story without going through everything point by point. Like how you can map a polygon by just painting the dots at each corner, and leaving the viewer to supply the lines in their imagination. Of course, it will take an incredibly skillful scriptwriter to pull this off, and Sorkin is an arrogant a--hole who thinks he can do it -- we'll see.

Personally, I'd love for someone to do the Next/Pixar years. I just saw Jobs' "lost interview" over the weekend on Netflix, and it's so fascinating. Probably more entertaining than the current movie, which I was turned off by just from seeing the trailer, and have no intention of watching -- you couldn't pay me enough to waste two hours of my life on that!

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

I wanted it to do well, I just didn't want to have to go see it myself.

Oh well, maybe in a few decades someone will do it right, because I'm not expecting the 2014 one to do it right. (Or maybe when I get this one on Netflix, I'll learn you're all wrong.)

 

[jonnysods]

Is this really a movie that millions will want to see? Only for tech and apple fanboys mostly, yes?

 

[racer1441]

Captivate who? It's not like more people would see it. Sorry but most people just don't care.

Most people don't care about most movies. Who gives a flip about that stupid race horse? Still was a successful movie.

A good movie will pull people in. I have high hopes for the movie they are making based on the book, that will at least double or triple the take of this movie.

----------

Is this really a movie that millions will want to see? Only for tech and apple fanboys mostly, yes?

Wrong. The Facebook movie made about $225 million world wide. A good Jobs movie will bring in at least that much. The issue isn't the content, but that this isn't the good Jobs movie they are making.

 

[tekno]

I'm sure most would rather just download this one when available and watch it at home

I would suggest that most people haven't even heard of this film and, of those that have, the majority aren't even vaguely interested. Like me.

 

[jkdem85]

All these movies ignore the iPhone... It's his greatest creation

----------

Clever but not true.
Actually, from the reviews I've read the movie ends after Steve Introduces the first iPod. So he doesn't die at the end of the movie. It does suck that at the end we all die.

I saw it last night... Terrible skips xerox 100 percent. Woz sticks around until 85 and is active, next us basically ignored, mac creation is about 50 second montage. Zero ipod creation.... These movies keep ignoring the iPhone which is his greatest success

 

[Risco]

The only way is down. No wonder it did not get a release date in the UK, it will be straight to blu ray over here.

 

[FatLip]

I'm sure most would rather just download this one when available and watch it at home

exactly what i was thinking, Jobs made a huge success with apple because he ALLOWED jail breaking, lets be honest, for those who wanted more from their devices and knew about JB and how to it has been a whole different market and advantage for all apple developers to have their apps tested by JBers,

i aint saying they will dl the film for free but that its better just to dl it, after all its not really steve so why the big picture right

 

[Shearwater]

Straight to DVD but no Blu Ray.....

 

[Todd B.]

It's a documentary, what did they expect?

 

[ValSalva]

I thought I'd have some time to see this in the theaters. Better go fast because this is going to be an endangered species. Not all that surprising after casting choices, trailers, and now all the apparently justifiably bad reviews.

 

[iapplelove]

I would suggest that most people haven't even heard of this film and, of those that have, the majority aren't even vaguely interested. Like me.

Umm I'm pretty sure I meant most people as in those who actually want to view the film . Not most as in the entire earth population .

 

[Bilbo63]

I thought Ashton, did a decent job (no pun intended) and I think that he was passionate about the project and wanted it to be good. Ashton was good, Josh Gad was okay. No one was great. The writing and directing was weak in my opinion.

I felt that they portrayed Steve as always being this genius. In his early days, I think jobs was definitely a visionary, but a bit wild and certainly not ready to lead. Too much to fast maybe? Steve needed a handler, someone that he respected to groom him. I think that he thought Scully would be that guy.

The Steve that came back to Apple in 1996 had grown and matured and was much better prepared to lead. I feel like the movie missed that.

I was mildly entertained, but because I wasn't expecting much, I wouldn't say that I left the theatre disappointed. I got what what I figured I'd get. I do respect Ashton's genuine passion for the project. It was a tough one. A swing and a miss.

 

[winston1236]

Most people don't care about most movies. Who gives a flip about that stupid race horse? Still was a successful movie.

A good movie will pull people in. I have high hopes for the movie they are making based on the book, that will at least double or triple the take of this movie.

----------



Wrong. The Facebook movie made about $225 million world wide. A good Jobs movie will bring in at least that much. The issue isn't the content, but that this isn't the good Jobs movie they are making.

Facebook is used by a lot more young people than apple products.

 

[RobertMartens]

Sucks that he dies at the end...

Yo, how about a polite spoiler alert next time before you just blurt out the ending and ruin a movie.

----------

I thought Ashton, did a decent Jobs (no pun intended)

Yeah right, no pun intended, you woz so and you know it.

----------

Saying: "It will be fun to watch knowing it's not costing me any extra money. "

Is not much of an endorsement. That's how you have fun.

----------

You guys are forgetting how good Justin Long was. Ironically he was really a part of the story itself. iSteve is a must for Apple Fans.

When Justin Long playing Steve Jobs upbraids the Justin Long in the movie for being no good. It doesn't get better than that.

If you haven't seen it just shut up and watch it. If you have and didn't like it, just shut up. If you agree with me, "That's what I'm talking about"

 

[wovel]

Comparing the opening of a film by a no name director with no studio behind it to a movie where Aaron Sorkin wrote the screenplay and was the EP just silly. Stick to technology news, the entertainment stories are pretty tortured.

The budget for the social network was $40m, see the issue? The Social Network had 3 times the budget, a real writer, a real director, and studio support. Jobs had a popular sitcom actor.

I think Jobs was a decent movie. It was not as well made (or marketed) as The Social Network. Kutcher did a pretty good job. You can tell he spent a lot of time working on some of the mannerisms. The only real problem is they went to wide with the release. This is not a film that should have gone to 2100 theaters.

They likely would have made the same 6.7 million on half the sreens.

 

[sittnick]

Jobs had plenty of issues, including awful reviews and a comedy star playing dramatic (almost never a good idea).

That's funny, I have always heard it to be the other way around. What comes to mind? Jackie Gleason in "The Hustler", Mary Tyler Moore in "Ordinary People", Tom Hanks in "Castaway", George Burns in "The Sunshine Boys" (That part was half-dramatic). Now, this does not apply so much to guys like Robin Williams and Bob Hope, but a great comedic actor can often be a very good dramatic actor.

 

[Treq]

Who takes rotten tomatoes seriously? the site is horrible and the comments are as superficial as it gets

I do. Their ratings are usually spot on. When they say a move sucks, it sucks. When they say its good, it's usually good. The only exception I noticed in the last few years is Avatar. They said it was good, and it most definitely was not.

 

[racer1441]

Facebook is used by a lot more young people than apple products.

Young people aren't going to movies. No one is going to movies compared to years ago, but if a movie about that snot nosed punk from Facebook and those tedious twins makes that kind of money, a Steve Jobs movie will do more money.

----------

Jobs had plenty of issues, including awful reviews and a comedy star playing dramatic (almost never a good idea).

That's funny, I have always heard it to be the other way around. What comes to mind? Jackie Gleason in "The Hustler", Mary Tyler Moore in "Ordinary People", Tom Hanks in "Castaway", George Burns in "The Sunshine Boys" (That part was half-dramatic). Now, this does not apply so much to guys like Robin Williams and Bob Hope, but a great comedic actor can often be a very good dramatic actor.

You cannot be comparing JAckie Gleason and Mary Tyler Moore to the likes of that drugged up hippy Kutcher.

 

[iMerik]

I feel like I'd be most annoyed with Wozniak's character. He just looks ridiculous when Wozniak really didn't. Wozniak saw the film: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...-film_n_3775920.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

 

[Klosefabrinio]

o come on, they caste Ashton as Steve Jobs and then they expect the movie to break records, really?

 

[OneMike]

I didn't even know this movie was released yet. That said, I have no interest in seeing it in the theatre. I will check it out at home sometime.

 

[TheZeitgeist]

People go see good movies

I saw Jobs on Thursday, and it was what I thought it was going to be: A milquetoast hagiography with bad editing and odd choices in regards to what it portrays of it's subject.

Does Ashton Kutcher suck playing Steve Jobs? Hard to tell given the script, frankly. And saying The Social Network blew the doors off this one, well, as a movie it does even if The Social Network was about the founder of Larry's Carpet Cleaning.

Facebook, in the context of the digital age, is a footnote compared to the likes of an Apple, or a Microsoft. But a good movie makes a dull or unimportant subject very interesting, bad movies likewise drag fascinating and vital subjects into the boring zone.

I think its also worth mentioning that Jobs does a worse take on Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs, which really hurts the film's credibility in my opinion. If you want to I.D. the truly bizarre and brilliant savant who helped found Apple, it's Woz. In this movie he's just a nerdworm who for some reason designs whole computers yet doesn't see their potential (the potential Woz did not see in computers that Jobs did was how much $$$ was to be made - not exactly Digital Jesus at work there).

So looking at the box office mini-bomb that is this movie, I wouldn't say its a verdict on public interest in Steve Jobs, its just another verdict on what the public thinks of bad movies that don't make up for it with glamorous gals in short skirts and Michael Bay spizzarkle - which is to say, yawn.