Kate Winslet & Aaron Sorkin Win for 'Steve Jobs' at Golden Globes

[furi0usbee]

I take it you've never seen an Aaron Sorkin show/film before. It's not 'cute'. It's his very distinct style that has a rhythm and cadence that's really unlike any other writer out there. Like him or hate him, what Aaron Sorkin does isn't ever intended to be exactly real. Of course people don't talk like that. But people don't talk in iambic pentameter either and yet we consider Shakespeare's words to be greatness.

No, he went way overboard.

 

[manu chao]

I just saw this movie a few weeks back. I watched the entire thing, which says something right there. The movie seems so forced, with *everything* of import (or what they think is important) that happened in Steve's Apple life moving so fast. You learn nothing really about the man. All you really learn is that he denied his child and kept on denying her until the final scene. I for one, don't really care too much about his private life. I know him for his business life. That's what I wanted to learn first and foremost. The dialog was written for "Steve the myth" and not the person. A question requiring a yes/no answer may get 3 paragraphs. Sometimes writers can get way too cute.

You'll learn more by watching the Kutcher movie, sadly. If you have been in the loop on Jobs all the while, you won't actually learn anything about him in any of these movies really. They tend to take the myth and pump up those legends. Nothing to see here, you've seen it all before.

Winslet's "accent" was a distraction in the movie too. I wasn't bothered too much by the lack of a Jobs likeness playing the part. I guess I wanted to see a movie about Steve and Apple (computers), not his child support payments.

I think we shouldn't judge the movie as if it were a documentary. It wasn't billed as one, and I don't think is intended to be one. I know, it plays very much on that it appears to paint a picture of a very well-known person (or rather a set of publicly known persons, from Woz onwards) and show us tech history from that person view point, but in the end it is a fictional story that is inspired by true events.

The biggest problem of the movie is that it creates the appearance of showing a version of what has happened in real life (or a version that comes close to what has happened) by incorporating so many real-life personalities, events, details, while at its core (when you subtract all the paraphernalia starting with the name of the movie, the name of the main characters, the name of the company, the name of the products) it's merely a movie about a fictional but visionary and eventually wildly successful tech leader with exacting demands that often can put off many of the people closest to him, including his family.

Much like The Great Dictator wasn't a biography of Hitler, 'Steve Jobs' shouldn't have been billed as a retelling of real story.
This movie massively fails to put enough distance between the real-life history and the characters created for the movie which were inspired by the real person that Steve Jobs was. As many movies say: Any similarity between characters and events in this movie and real people and events should be seen as purely inspirational (and imposed by the marketing department to make the movie sell). In the end it naturally wasn't the marketing department, it was the writer's and director's own hubris in thinking they could pull off both: create a fascinating fictional character and make it sound like it very closely resembles the actual person and story.
[doublepost=1452566329][/doublepost]

Though I'd have to say, I didn't notice that character was Kate Winslet till 30min into the movie.

Yes, she really was very much in-character.

 

[RebornProphet]

The movie was awful. So factually inaccurate and the way "Woz" turned up in all 3 acts with the same stupid line was embarrassingly funny ("Give the Apple II guys some credit"). Great if you like sensationalist, twisted biopics but for those who will watch this movie in the future as a benchmark of what Jobs was like, they'll be getting a fake sequence of events and conversations.
[doublepost=1452594896][/doublepost]

The movie was fantastic. I felt that while it was a little hard on Steve, it seems to fall in line with how he was seen and described by those around him at that time. It portrayed him as human, struggling to get in touch with his emotional side and to connect with others but contradicted by his deep dedication to his work, not some wild egomaniac with no sense of humanity. In the end, we did see that and it comes full circle, showing us a Steve who has learned and evolved into the Steve Jobs that his wife and Apple wanted him to be seen as.

Having read the book on which this film was based and authorized by Steve Jobs himself, this seems to be fairly accurate for the periods in his life that the movie covers. It does not cover his life with his wife nor does it get into the later stages of Apple as it became very successful, a period that Steve was known to have softened and become more of a family man in private and open to compromises with his team as a CEO.

The end of the film does appear to set up this next phase of his life. People should go into watching this film ignoring the bad publicity and they may be surprised at how great and entertaining it is. While I was concerned with Fassbender playing the lead, you definitely forget that he doesn't look like Jobs because his character, his personality, his speech, and his mannerisms totally make up for it. At some point into the movie, you accept that you're watching Steve Jobs on screen.

No, at every point I sat there going, "That's wrong", "That didn't happen", "That person wasn't even there", "He'd never have spoken to Jobs like that". The entire thing is a fabrication and a factually inaccurate mess.

For you to say that this film is "fairly accurate" shows you really don't know much about Jobs (in the context of what long term Apple users do). It's hilarious how much of this movie is sheer fabrication.

The "hello" demo scene at the start and the whole "master plan" to get back to Apple that Jobs reveals to Hoffman before the NeXT launch being the two I noticed most. And the fact Hoffman was at the iMac launch at all is also ridiculous when she wasn't at the company by this point. The end scene with Lisa didn't happen, and didn't even need to because Jobs had already married Laurene and had their own children, and Lisa had long moved into the Jobs family home by the time Jobs launched the iMac.

If you want to see the fact vs fiction stripped back and explained, read this:

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/steve-jobs/

 

[McScooby]

In the same vein as 'the social network' for what it was perfectly watchable with excellent performances from the cast, was it factually or even fully correct? who cares, it's a film!!

 

[scottishwildcat]

I thought no one even watched this?

I certainly watched it. Seems like I'm the only person who really liked it, too... but then again, I was expecting it to be an Aaron Sorkin drama about a father and his daughter that happened to have a character called Steve Jobs in it, rather than the biopic that most people seem to have been expecting.

 

[jonnysods]

I certainly watched it. Seems like I'm the only person who really liked it, too... but then again, I was expecting it to be an Aaron Sorkin drama about a father and his daughter that happened to have a character called Steve Jobs in it, rather than the biopic that most people seem to have been expecting.

I'm looking forward to seeing it. Reckon it will be on Netflix?