Okay, Mr. Fassbender, repeat this phrase: "insanely great!" Okay, now say, "Your holding it wrong." Okay, now say ...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Michael Fassbender Depicted as Steve Jobs in New Movie Set Poster
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The problem is, most people don't know or remember (or, the ones, who did know him are mostly dead etc. or don't watch movies), how the real Oskar Schindler looked and they accept anyone, who just have the talent to play the part.
With S. Jobs, it's a bit more complicated, since you have tons of pictures and videos of him in media like magazines, TV (documentaries etc.) and of course every corner of the internet(TM). And we (most of us) did see him alive.
That's the biggest problem. So for the actor, it has to look and physicaly act somehow similar, so that the actual people can more easily accept him/his play.
I don't (and neither anyone of you) know, how Fessbender will work or will play his part, since I didn't see the movie, but the first looks of these posters/images aren't really convincing. At least for me. Hope I am wrong and Fassbender will be a pleasant surprise.
The Michael Dell movie will only cost half as much to get into, but when the film breaks you won't be able to get anyone to fix it for you...
And I think it will be an Oscar contender. The pedigree in front of and behind the camera is simply too good not to be in the conversation.
----------
And the bar regarding the actual performance was set pretty low.
----------
This is profoundly ignorant and incorrect.
Another one of those movies you cannot watch because you know no matter how hard the actors try, it will never be "real".
We've seen too many keynotes, heard too many anecdotes, heard too many rumors.
A film about Howard Hughes is probably a thousand times easier to make - and a thousand times more fun to watch.
We've seen too many keynotes, heard too many anecdotes, heard too many rumors.
A film about Howard Hughes is probably a thousand times easier to make - and a thousand times more fun to watch.
I don't get this obsession with trying to find an actor that looks exactly like Jobs, if people just want to see a movie with someone that looks exactly like Jobs and ignore the story/acting aspect, just go to youtube and rewatch a 100 of Steve's Keynotes.
Exactly. Will you ever hear anyone say, 'you know Citizen Kane is a great film and all, but Orson Welles looks nothing like William Randolph Hearst'!
There were times when I thought he shone. Especially when he was pissed off, it got uncanny at times. I would blame the director and producers more than Ashton. That movie was a 6/10 with the possibility of being an 8.5/10, even a 9/10.
The story was rushed and there were so many important parts that were left out. It should have been titled "Jobs at Apple 1974-1996".
Did anyone notice that weird walk? I haven't seen a lot of video of Steve walking, but never noticed it in his presentations.
It has to do with being able to be immersed in the film. It's akin to seeing the strings holding Christopher Reeve in Superman 3. Two things that have already been mention, 1. Steve's image is VERY fresh in all of our minds, making this more important, 2. They didn't even bother to style his hair the same, which makes you wonder if they are going to be so nonchalant with other details.
Details and being able to be lost in the movie are what make a great film. Yes, this is my opinion as a fan.
In my opinion it definitely matters.
Ashton Kutcher wins by default just because of the uncanny appearance.
Congrats to him for having a resemblance to Steve Jobs.
That doesn't excuse his often dazed-and-confused underacting and borderline line reading performance.
Perhaps in another..... Ohhhh, what shall we say.....?
10 years time, we could have a CGI Steve jobs, overlaying Jobs CGI Data over a RL actor, to re-create this film, with a totally lifelike Steve Jobs in the role.
I'm sure this will happen, and in time a whole side line industry will eventually be created in new films featuring actors or personalities from long ago.
Can't by THAT far away don't you feel?
I know it could be done now, but I mean convincingly without looking too CGI'd.
I'm talking about CGI overlays of real actors (it's the only way to get movement right) in a Real life setting. Not CGI setting.
Thoughts?
10 years time, we could have a CGI Steve jobs, overlaying Jobs CGI Data over a RL actor, to re-create this film, with a totally lifelike Steve Jobs in the role.
I'm sure this will happen, and in time a whole side line industry will eventually be created in new films featuring actors or personalities from long ago.
Can't by THAT far away don't you feel?
I know it could be done now, but I mean convincingly without looking too CGI'd.
I'm talking about CGI overlays of real actors (it's the only way to get movement right) in a Real life setting. Not CGI setting.
Thoughts?
I agree with the posters who say that looks are far less important than the script, acting and directing. The Social Nerwork is a great example.... Eisenberg looks nothing like Zuck... heck, the entire cast looked nothing like their real life counterparts, yet the movie was highly entertaining and a big box office success.
They didn't even try to get the hair right. How are they going to get anything else right? Yoakim Phoenix didn't look like Johnny Cash, but all of the details … including the hair … and acting were spot on.
