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 in Talks to Play Steve Jobs in Upcoming Sony Biopic
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. Hollywood is stuck in a rut with sequels, prequels, and Steve Jobs biographies.
I don't think that's the problem. I think the actors find that the idea lacks inspiration, creativity and depth. Therefore it's not suitable to showcase their talent and diversity. Essentially it's a role for an unknown or someone with a failing career. It's not a role to showcase your capabilities and land more spectacular and higher paying roles.
Anyone considered that people are passing because the script is garbage? Every time I read the concept, it seems dumber.
- It's based on Isaacson's hack "biography" which is largely repackaged info from other sources. Isaacson never asked any questions of value.
- It chooses 3 "events" to cover, so it picks the Mac intro which everyone has done to death, the introduction of the NeXT machine which is no longer around, and the iPod which is not relevant anymore. Why? If you're going to (stupidly) do 3 events, why isn't the iPhone in there? It seems like they are following the typical 3 act model that shows brilliant success -> humbling failure -> redemption we've seen many times over.
- You're going to condense a guy's life into 90 minutes? Why should this be a movie? Why not a mini-series? What can we learn or experience in 90 minutes from a condensed version of 3 events that we've already seen? What new insights are there going to be? Did Isaacson come across some new Cliff Notes on Jobs from folklore.org and share them with this Sorkin hack?
I'm calling it typical Hollywood trash. I expect manufactured drama, made up subplots, and no fact checking.
Don't even get them going on prequels. Then we'll be stuck with something like the look who's talking series of parents and conception and a talking sperm that becomes Steve.
----------
I think the whole concept could be covered with 3 commercials being played. And in the end, someone throws a sledgehammer through the 2014 mini.
----------
I somehow feel like this is one of the last roles anyone will do. As in it will be their last role (unless someone searches for a broke unemployed cheap actor and ressurrects them).
I have to agree with you, this is no longer worthy of being a headline story, even on MacRumors.
And TSN was/is a much more interesting story from the vantage point of its target audience, people under 40. It's about FB, which everyone and their teenaged sister is on, and how a guy in college quickly became the workd's youngest billionaire, a person people can actually relate to much more than Jobs. And besides, it wasn't like TSN was just about Zuckerberg, whereas the Jobs movie will be about just that, Jobs, with some minor window dressing to make it actually an interesting story.
what about Gary Busey? He would be an amazing Steve Jobs.
Here's to the crazy ones . Gary F*^kin Busey
Here's to the crazy ones . Gary F*^kin Busey
Ha, not to mention, lack of eye for talent. There's a reason why Noah was a TV actor. He couldn't carry a movie and it would be no better than the Kutcher flick.
----------
True, I realized that after I posted the comment; and it's easier to make a young actor look older with makeup than the reverse. That's unfortunate cos based on Sorkin's comments, this is a movie where the actor will need to carry the entire film. There are very few actors with that type of talent and a younger DDL would've been perfect.
Yeah I also dropped out of the running. I can't believe they were only paying tree fiddy. Do they even know who I am?!? I tried out for a play in 11th grade because I would get to kiss the hottest girl in school. I didn't get the part, even though my best friend was directing it, probably because everyone couldn't handle my intensity, much like Apple's board couldn't handle Steve Jobs in the 80s. We're practically twins and this post proves it.
I don't think this movie will ever be done. There's something fishy about it that a few great actors already passed.
I wouldn't be surprised about that, I really don't see it working as 3 30 minute scenes. So maybe the other actors have passed once they saw the script and realized it wouldn't work.
Fassbender would play the darkest and most tortured Jobs ever.
I would watch that movie. Not for the accuracy, but for the performance.
I would watch that movie. Not for the accuracy, but for the performance.
I had no issue with Kutcher or even iSteve. Loved both portrayals. Good fun. Neither will change the world, but Kutcher really put in the effort to not only look like Jobs, but be the part. Apparently he's too rich and good looking to be taken seriously by some people. Their loss. He'd do a good job with Sorkin, given the chance (but he won't).
Fassbender's performances always promise so much, but he never seems to get the chance to shine. And there's only one thing worse than a big name playing Jobs, that's someone they're used to pushing around not being able to do their best
I'm of 2 minds about Sorkin - fast and loose with the Social Network facts, but "got" Zuck's ambition to join the illuminati, which as the leader of (let's pretend they're all real users) a billion people, he will be taking meetings at that level, now.
Sony being Sony, they're totally clueless and think this will be a blockbuster, so they're shopping the A-list - who better to play Jobs than Batman? Who's the most likeable guy in Hollywood to play Woz? Seth-darling of course.
We have to trust that Sorkin's perception will do better than the profound sadness and loneliness of being in a position to change the world. Ive's playing that part now.
Fassbender's performances always promise so much, but he never seems to get the chance to shine. And there's only one thing worse than a big name playing Jobs, that's someone they're used to pushing around not being able to do their best
I'm of 2 minds about Sorkin - fast and loose with the Social Network facts, but "got" Zuck's ambition to join the illuminati, which as the leader of (let's pretend they're all real users) a billion people, he will be taking meetings at that level, now.
Sony being Sony, they're totally clueless and think this will be a blockbuster, so they're shopping the A-list - who better to play Jobs than Batman? Who's the most likeable guy in Hollywood to play Woz? Seth-darling of course.
We have to trust that Sorkin's perception will do better than the profound sadness and loneliness of being in a position to change the world. Ive's playing that part now.
Enough already with these Jobs movies, we already know everything there is to know about the guy. These types of movies are never going to make money. If anything they should simply combine all known footage of him and tell a story, whatever it may be. Making these movies with 15 different actors throughout the years is downright retarded.
It's based on the idea that you can't really condense someone's life in 90 minutes, so you choose to concentrate on key moments. That's what The Social Network did, they didn't cover all of Zuckerberg's life only a short period. Many other biopics use the same idea, only cover a short significant period that shows the essence of what the character is all about.
I think the choice of the 3 periods are pretty significant drama-wise : The Mac launch is the beginning of the Apple/Jobs legend, the NeXt is the fall of Apple/Jobs era ( Jobs fired, then Apple almost bankrupt), and the iPod is his resurrection ( the iPod IS what saved Apple). There you have it, a traditionnal heroic plot : The hero almost saves the world, fails miserably then comes back and gets his revenge when everyone thought he was dead.
And while Fassbender doesn't look at all like Jobs, he owns two characteristics that are essential to incarnate him : charm, and a menacing intensity. If you can project both, you have the essence of Jobs persona and can convince people to forget about how closely you look or not like Jobs.
I doubt the script is what made the first two actors bail out. David Fincher wouldn't embark on a mediocrely written project ( and he only bailed out because Sony refused to pay him the 10$millions upfront+ total control of marketing). Sorkin said that his script has more spoken lines than what most actors get in 3 movies. Maybe some actors just don't feel comfortable in such a talkative role.. And yes, maybe money played a role too...
Last edited:
Maybe they say an early screening of Gone Girl and decided that fincher was washed up?
Last edited by a moderator:
Is all this stuff about this biopic really front-page material? I couldn't care less personally; as big an impact as Steve had, I'm fine with reading about stuff he did, as I expect any biopic about him to focus on the negative for pure sensationalism.
$50 says his family will be outraged, lawsuit ensues and the film makes even more money, and I still won't care about it.
$50 says his family will be outraged, lawsuit ensues and the film makes even more money, and I still won't care about it.