Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
or as Sony did, take the last actor willing to do the movie, they went through a ton of candidates that backed out.

Almost every movie in existence go through a list of actors before one fully commits. We only found out about this thing specifically because of the leak. But, this is not unusual for any movie. Even classic movies went through a few screen tests, interviews, before selecting.
 
They can't find anyone who looks like Steve Jobs lol

That's the thing about doing these biopics. If you can't find anyone that looks like him, you might as well create a new character.
 
And you know, I totally agree with you. I think the issue is that most people, and particularly the demographic to whom this movie will be interesting, remember very well exactly what Jobs looked like. Most have seen his image, and the term "Stevenote" is well known because, well, we've seen one.

It might not be as important if this were made in 30 or 40 years, but so soon after Jobs's death, yeah, I think you absolutely need to consider how the actor in the lead role looks by way of resemblance.

You wrote pretty much what I was just about to. The more recently alive or well documented/pictured a real historic figure is, the more an actor needs to resemble him or her physically. The less physically similar, the more distracting the actor's appearance will be to the viewer.
 
Almost every movie in existence go through a list of actors before one fully commits. We only found out about this thing specifically because of the leak. But, this is not unusual for any movie. Even classic movies went through a few screen tests, interviews, before selecting.

Exactly. Wasn't Tom Selleck the first choice to play Indiana Jones, but couldn't because of his contract to do Magnum P. I.?
 
Looks like a younger John Sculley.

Ajay-Sharma-John%2BSculley.jpg


michaelfassbenderjobs1.jpg
 
I don't have a problem with Michael Fassbender. My problem is that they didn't even try to make him look like Steve Jobs, which makes me think their budget got cut big time and they don't even care about the biggest details.

----------

Why does he have to look like Jobs? It is a movie, it doesn't matter what he looks like.

Because that would be like Queen Latifah playing Princess Diana in a movie about her life.
 
Genuine question, there is about 3 pictures depicting him as Jobs, is that enough to make a judgement?

Perhaps not. But this is what we got for the article we're discussing. Based on that, I shared how it felt to me. *shrug* I hope it *is* better once we get the final product. All I know is that when the Kutcher leaks happened, I was feeling that "damn, he looks fantastic!" and the movie sucks, so I hope that this will be the exact opposite.
 
This actor will do good. I am glad the movie will talk about Steve Jobs with NeXT. Finally some new material.

I would like a Steve Jobs movie that covers from 1997 to 2012. Pirates movie should have had a sequel to cover that time period.
 
Not sure how he looks even remotely like Steve Jobs... but if he plays the part well, I guess it doesn't matter. We shall see!

Is one thing not to look like Steve Jobs but at least get the hair right! Or did Steve use the hair like that?
 
I hope the acting in this is way bette than looks... because man that looks nothing like steve jobs... way too corporate in that picture... jobs was way more relaxed and the hairstyle is way off... Looks more like John Schulley than Steve Jobs... maybe that got them mixed up?
 
Genuine question, there is about 3 pictures depicting him as Jobs, is that enough to make a judgement?

How many do you need in order to make an informed opinion?

I think this movie is going to be pulled after the first test screening.
 
Another example is Brad Pitt playing Billy Beane in Moneyball. I personally saw zero resemblance, yet it didn't stop the movie from being great. We're obviously biased because we know Steve so well. The average person is lucky to have seen a few brief clips of him giving keynotes, if even that. More important than looks is the acting. If he gives a good acting performance, complete with some of Steve mannerisms, it'll be a good movie. I've been a big fan of Fassbender for a long time. He has the ability to be both charming, and have a white hot intensity, two qualities often attributed to Steve. This movie has potential, and should not be judged before it's seen. Though I will say that his resemblance to Steve is minimal, so if that's a concern for you then it may hamper the movie regardless.
 
Fassbender is a great actor. Love him.

But he looks absolutely nothing like Steve! Even Ashton Kutcher was more believable.

And people can hate but Ashton was actually good, the movie he was in and that terrible script was the problem
 
It's certainly preferable that an actor can play the part over looking the part, but I just don't understand why they didn't even try to make his hair look similar when it's such an easy detail to take care of.
 
I think way too many people here are dwelling on his look.

It will be the performance that makes this feel real or not, and I would be very careful to dismiss a combination of Fassbender and Boyle.

Who knows how the movie will turn out, but I don't think it will succeed or fail based on Fassbender's look.
 
How many do you need in order to make an informed opinion?

I think this movie is going to be pulled after the first test screening.

An informed opinion can be made after watching a movie or reading a review? Really didn't know I had to specify that.
 
This isn't even the right font: NeXT used Futura Condensed iirc. Compare the capital M and G to this one to see: http://www.nextcomputers.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=582
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.