Laurene Powell Jobs Tried to Kill New 'Steve Jobs' Film, Friends Object to Portrayals

[dysamoria]

The people objecting to these accounts likely never lived through the worst of Steve Jobs (unlike Wozniak). These people were sort of in the latter half of the story of his life. It's natural that they'd reject a focus on the more selfish, cruel, hostile version of the guy. They still hurt over his death. I agree these media items are opportunistic. Give it ten years and do a balanced account, not a rush-to-release version that focuses on the most conflict and intensity (or three, four such accounts!).

 

[ginkobiloba]

The film won't be opening here in France until early january, but based on what I've seen in all the trailers, I would say that Cook, Powell & Co have no real reason to freak out. If anything , this film may actually reinforce Jobs legend even more. The film seems to acknowledge him as a visionary, obsessive perfectionist that refused compromises, even if that hurts people around him. So what ? I don't think there is a single example in history of real visionaries and geniuses that weren't hard to live with. Not a single one. And in any field. Even people like Gandhi had dark sides.
There is no such thing as saints. If you want saints, read fantasy novels ( that includes religious books). There are only imperfect people. Deal with it.

 

[kagharaht]

No urge to see this fictionalized BS. Liberally twisting facts to sell the movie.

 

[Aloft085]

Is that true? I dunno. Tim Cook seems to be a kinder, gentler type of CEO and yet a pretty good leader. Different styles, I guess.

Tim Cook is a steady hand at the wheel, but he isn't a revolutionary. All product changes since Steve's death have been evolutionary in nature. A bigger iPhone, a bigger iPad, a watch... Not exactly earth-shaking stuff.

 

[uwdude]

Sometimes it's hard for hero worshippers to read the various truths about their hero.

His wife's refusal to participate when given a warm open invitation by the filmmaker is very revealing.

According to several reports Woz found the film quite accurate.

I'm sure Mrs. Jobs has a very different portrait of him than other people do, being his wife. In fact, he probably had vastly different relationships with some of these people, which probably accounts for the varying opinions. I'm sure he probably had a very different relationship with Woz than he did with Ive, for example. And a very different relationship than those with people outside the company or family.

 

[avanpelt]

Steve Jobs was who he was -- and he seemed to make no apologies about that. With all due respect to his wife, she cannot rewrite history. I hope for the sake of his memory that she can be at peace with the world knowing the good and the bad. After all, at the end of the day, Steve Jobs was human just like all of us.

From his wife's perspective and Tim Cook's perspective, too, they probably think that people knowing the "bad" side of Steve Jobs will tarnish his legacy. On the contrary, I think being made aware of the "bad" may help preserve his legacy as an extremely gifted communicator and a true tech visionary that, while far from perfect -- and there is no perfect human being, period -- he was able to accomplish several incredible things during his career. That's the real point of the story, I think.

 

[jasonklee]

That's a shame. I didn't like Isaacson's book but I was quite enthralled with the movie. Probably Sorkin at his finest. It's a remarkable screenplay. He captured Jobs the way I read about him from various books but Sorkin wrote this as an education plot. And I'm jealous that he thought of a brilliant yet simple structure to tell his story. Three scenes and a beautiful ending.

 

[definitive]

Attempted murder link baiting?

 

[Glideslope]

People should just leave Steve and his family F****** alone.

 

[Waxhead138]

I think Tim had it right..."opportunistic".

My issue with this term being applied to this situation is that the timing and context I think are off some. To provide a comparison within the same subject:

Amazon moved up the release date for the Walter Issacson book pretty much the day after Steve died. Released it a few weeks earlier than orginally scheduled, if memory serves. To me that is vulture-istic and the epitome of opportunistic.

This movie: Literally years after the mans passing, it's being released. I'm don't deny they want to make some money off of this movie, but with the amount of trouble in the beginning, they decided to see it through when they could have easily abandoned the project. I think there was some passion invested in this project that goes beyond a paycheck is my point here. Not just an opportunistic payday, imo.

Another conveniently forgotten fact: Steve hand picked Walter Issacson to write this book. If memory serves correctly that was partially due to Mr. Issacsons reputation to tell it the way he saw it....and Steve I believe wished for a factual portrayal even if it meant not everything was flattering. Mr. Jobs got exactly what he wanted and intended for that biography, and I don't mean that as snarky as it reads typing it.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

With Woz in this makes it Tug-of-war.

 

[Millah]

I wonder why seemingly everyone at Apple hates Isaacson's biography. Jobs gave his blessing on it, and Isaacson had unprecedented access to everyone involved with Apple and Jobs. I thought it was a fair portrait, showing both his obsessiveness and his genius. (The two often go hand in hand.) By the end of the book, I was quite moved by what he had accomplished over his too-brief life, and saddened it all came to an end. I'm not sure what more one could ask from a biography.

Guess what, Laurene also said "don't hold anything back, Steve has a lot of skeletons in his closet."

So it's not like she's upset that he was portrayed in any kind of negative light. Laurene and his team at Apple are upset about something else. The accuracy of his portrayal. Sure Isaacson could have all the access in the world, it doesn't matter to his conclusions or interpretation. It's like saying that data creates the conclusion in scientific research. Data only provides context, it doesn't provide the conclusion. It's up to the human interpreting the data to arrive at the conclusion.

Reading through Isaacsons biography, the guy simply didn't get it. Factual errors, or completely missing the mark on some of the most important and well known events of his career. If he can't even piece together important events like the purchase of NeXTStep and the subsequent development of Mac OSX, I'd be highly skeptical of the accuracy of his conclusions for much of the book.

Everyone on here making assumptions about Laurene and Tims motives are completely clueless. No one, except for Laurene and Steves friends, actually know their reasoning for disliking Isaacsons book. None of us actually know Steve Jobs as well. They do. It's ridiculous to accuse them of things when all of us don't have the slightest clue.

 

[hemanwomanhater]

Is this movie billed as fiction? Because it seems like even those who like the film admit a lot of the dialogue isn't the way it really happened. I believe both Woz and Andy Hertzfeld said that. Did Boyle or others get any input from the guys at Pixar or from guys like Avie Tevanian? One could argue that OS X is just as important as the original Mac and Avie was esentially the father of OS X. To me we're getting an incomplete picture of Steve if we mostly ignore the NeXT years, ignore getting married to Laurene and having kids, buying Pixar, running Apple for the second time, his bout with cancer etc.

It's a movie.

 

[tennisproha]

This is really a sad state of affairs. Tim is right to say they are being opportunistic but that applies to any movie thats ever been made about a famous figure at least from a producers pov.

I do however also feel if Laurene was given the chance to take part in making the movie more authentic and accurate, she should've taken that opportunity. Its a little unfair to cry foul when you were invited to come on board. Im sure her reason for not doing so mustve been because she didnt want to seem to be endorsing the movie and therefore the book.

It is sad how so many people have made movies about Steve in an attempt to "cash out". No matter how genuine the reason, if you havent gotten the blessing of the individuals' family or estate, you're being opportunistic and disrespectful to the figure being portrayed.

 

[blasto2236]

Is this movie billed as fiction? Because it seems like even those who like the film admit a lot of the dialogue isn't the way it really happened. I believe both Woz and Andy Hertzfeld said that. Did Boyle or others get any input from the guys at Pixar or from guys like Avie Tevanian? One could argue that OS X is just as important as the original Mac and Avie was esentially the father of OS X. To me we're getting an incomplete picture of Steve if we mostly ignore the NeXT years, ignore getting married to Laurene and having kids, buying Pixar, running Apple for the second time, his bout with cancer etc.

From what I've read, the movie centers around 3 of the most important product launches in his career: the Mac, the NeXT Cube, and the iPod. So yes, the NeXT years and his ousting from Apple/triumphant return will be the driving force of the story.

 

[roland.g]

I think the truth of it is that the less than informed masses will likely develop their ideas about who he was from a film such as this because the 'quick give it to me now' society we have isn't usually that likely to learn more beyond what is spoon fed to them. And those who object probably are concerned that a film will give a large audience a very incomplete picture. Look at The Social Network as an example.

A film like this is a dramatized interpretation delivered as a collage of thin and selected/selective slices of time, assembled to tell a version of a story. But without more, many people will base their understanding of the man responsible for their phones on that story.

 

[ZipZap]

The more Ms. Jobs and Apple Cronies hate it....the more I am convinced its an accurate portrayal. If you're given a chance to weigh in and object, and you decline...you have no right to comment after.

 

[ZipZap]

I think the truth of it is that the less than informed masses will likely develop their ideas about who he was from a film such as this because the 'quick give it to me now' society we have isn't usually that likely to learn more beyond what is spoon fed to them. And those who object probably are concerned that a film will give a large audience a very incomplete picture. Look at The Social Network as an example.

A film like this is a dramatized interpretation delivered as a collage of thin and selected/selective slices of time, assembled to tell a version of a story. But without more, many people will base their understanding of the man responsible for their phones on that story.

And their formed opinion would be accurate. He cannot be portrayed as a Saint when we was not one. Did he have a vision. Yep, and a lot of people made that happen.

 

[DotCom2]

My issue with this term being applied to this situation is that the timing and context I think are off some. To provide a comparison within the same subject:

Amazon moved up the release date for the Walter Issacson book pretty much the day after Steve died. Released it a few weeks earlier than orginally scheduled, if memory serves. To me that is vulture-istic and the epitome of opportunistic.

This movie: Literally years after the mans passing, it's being released. I'm don't deny they want to make some money off of this movie, but with the amount of trouble in the beginning, they decided to see it through when they could have easily abandoned the project. I think there was some passion invested in this project that goes beyond a paycheck is my point here. Not just an opportunistic payday, imo.

Another conveniently forgotten fact: Steve hand picked Walter Issacson to write this book. If memory serves correctly that was partially due to Mr. Issacsons reputation to tell it the way he saw it....and Steve I believe wished for a factual portrayal even if it meant not everything was flattering. Mr. Jobs got exactly what he wanted and intended for that biography, and I don't mean that as snarky as it reads typing it.

You've made some good points!
I just wished they wouldn't make "Steve the *hole" the focus, and instead show he was difficult to work with at times (duh) but a larger focus on his accomplishments .
But that wouldn't be as a good money maker I guess.

 

[PJL500]

Mr Jobs ran a major corporation. The type of individual who gets to do this is usually not a "good" person. There is a multi-award winning documentary called "The Corporation" (2003). This documentary traces the late 18th century American legal decision that established the business corporation organizational model legally as a person; the corporation as an institution has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.

Of course associates who are in the inner circle of Apple are going to want this movie to fit in with the goals of hugely financed PR department.

This is a corporation and like most corporations it's public image is of smiling executives and the stated goals cooked up by their PR departments.

The actual results of Apple's activities can be seen at huge environmental disaster sites like the vast toxic sludge lake at Baotou, Inner Mongolia, China. Or at the working and living conditions of their manufacturing facilities in China. Or countless other locations world wide.

It takes a certain kind of animal to run such an operation. It is not going to be pretty. This new Steve Jobs movie will let him off very lightly. If it reflected reality there would not be lines to see it.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Is that true? I dunno. Tim Cook seems to be a kinder, gentler type of CEO and yet a pretty good leader. Different styles, I guess.

Tim Cook is not the ruthless game-changer Steve Jobs was.
Tim Cook is the brilliant CEO who keeps a huge company aloft.

Tim cook could have never "saved" Apple like Steve did.
Steve could have never kept Apple huge like Tim is doing.

 

[The Phazer]

Censorship runs in the family I see.

 

[Mackinjosh]

Translation: We don't won't people to see the truth.

 

[currocj]

Steve jobs apologists doth protest too much, methinks

 

[jm001]

Is this movie billed as fiction? Because it seems like even those who like the film admit a lot of the dialogue isn't the way it really happened. I believe both Woz and Andy Hertzfeld said that. Did Boyle or others get any input from the guys at Pixar or from guys like Avie Tevanian? One could argue that OS X is just as important as the original Mac and Avie was esentially the father of OS X. To me we're getting an incomplete picture of Steve if we mostly ignore the NeXT years, ignore getting married to Laurene and having kids, buying Pixar, running Apple for the second time, his bout with cancer etc.

It's based on facts from Isaacson's book; however the script is written partly for dramatic effect so there was some creative license when transferring the facts from the book to the script. Anyone watching this film has to realize that it's also only covering a fraction of Jobs' life - only 3 events of his life. Anyone can look like a dick if only 3 events of his/her life is shown in a movie and of course if those events showcase a lot of negative behaviour. It's the negative behaviour that's most interesting to many people. A general audience would not want to sit through scenes showcasing the development of OS X, die hard Apple fans would, but not the general public.