It's filth to create fictional characters and use the names of real people. And again, we get the "stole the GUI from Xerox" falsehood. So few people in the public know that Apple licensed Xerox ideas, and hired Xerox engineers.
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.
'Steve Jobs' Debuts in Select Theaters as First Full Scene Debuts Online
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
None of it is true, is exaggeration. Woz said the sentiment is correct, but it is over dramatized. He also hinted at the movie making Jobs look nicer than he actually was.
Face it, Steve Jobs was a d-bag, but no one cares because he changed the world for the better. So in that regard, if you are a d-bag changing the world, you are a good d-bag.
+1.
It's been said time and time again, but it's worth repeating. Pirates of Silicon Valley is the most accurate and best acted film to tell Apple's story up until 1999. Probably because it was made when Apple was still in a very bad place, so it's far more objective and not filmed like Steve knew he'd turn it all around.
vs
vs
Safe to say Kutcher was the perfect Jobs
I guess your points are spot on. But it is sad that many will watch this and believe this is real. I don't mind taking creative license to dramatize things, but the facts should still be accurate. Otherwise they should change the names and make the obligatory "any similarity to real events or people is coincidental."
I'm sure it says that anyways, in the fine print near the end of the credits.
Movies, by the very nature of them being only 90 minutes long, and with short 1 minute scenes, cannot possibly show the complexities and true dialog spoken over a lifetime.
As long as the 'gist' or the relative idea gets across, the movie can be considered an accurate portrayal.
However, seeing just this one scene, I have many problems with it from what I know. For example, they show Jobs as completely callous and uncaring. Why would Woz want to be his friend then? And do things for him? There must be a different Jobs that Woz saw previously. This scene doesn't work to me because none of the caring is there. If it is in other scenes leading up to this, okay, this scene could work showing jobs as 'turning to the dark side and Woz trying to stop him'. I don't know.
Jobs was charismatic, the type of person you want to like, Jobs was also the type of person who you want him to like you, so you perform for him. This is what made his ****** and mad-scientist personalities work. All those complexities need to be shown. I don't know if this movie is showing everything or just the 'dark side'. It seems it's showing the 'dark side' only from what I've heard, and that's a poor portrayal.
As long as the 'gist' or the relative idea gets across, the movie can be considered an accurate portrayal.
However, seeing just this one scene, I have many problems with it from what I know. For example, they show Jobs as completely callous and uncaring. Why would Woz want to be his friend then? And do things for him? There must be a different Jobs that Woz saw previously. This scene doesn't work to me because none of the caring is there. If it is in other scenes leading up to this, okay, this scene could work showing jobs as 'turning to the dark side and Woz trying to stop him'. I don't know.
Jobs was charismatic, the type of person you want to like, Jobs was also the type of person who you want him to like you, so you perform for him. This is what made his ****** and mad-scientist personalities work. All those complexities need to be shown. I don't know if this movie is showing everything or just the 'dark side'. It seems it's showing the 'dark side' only from what I've heard, and that's a poor portrayal.
I would absolutely love to see a Pirates of Silicon Valley sequel. They need to make another one, picking up where it left off.
vs
vs
Safe to say Kutcher was the perfect Jobs
I find the whole "need" to look "exactly" like the subject ridiculous. It's a movie. It's called suspension of disbelief. Film history is filled with movies about real people that look very little to nothing like they actually did.
And I would much rather have a great actor portray someone with pathos then someone who can't act his way out of a paper bag who looks exactly like who they are playing.
Is it weird that at the same time I think "there is NO WAY Steve would have said that last line" and really want to see this movie?
Nope. Still fake. The perfect Jobs was the real Jobs. If you want realism, can't beat a video of the real original guy.
I'll take a brilliant actor like Fassbender over an average look-alike like Kutcher anytime.
I actually liked the movie despite expecting to hate it. This film looks great, too, but I don't expect either of them to be very true to what might have happened in every scene. And right now almost everyone that worked with Steve Jobs over the past 30 years is alive and able to offer up what really happened.
For really good reads on what Apple was like in the early days and during it's 'rebirth' in the early 2000's visit The Original Macintosh and Ken Segall's Observatory. I'm sure there are others out there but those are my favorites. Also, Triumph of the Nerds is still floating around YouTube somewhere I'm sure and is also a worth a look.
The Woz plays himself here:
He is a little... wordy, and is only in the first 10 minutes or so.
Of course people are going to be upset about this. This is not about all of Steve's life in pure non-fiction totally objective to everyone fashion. This is a painting, an interpretation of the three big milestones in his life. It's a fable. A rise of a new power, banished to the wilderness, then to come back renewed. It only goes up to the iMac, so this is not his whole life or even a documentary, of course. It is art and it should reflect an interpretation of life. There is no one pure non-fiction view of a person. Everyone sees everything differently of a person. And see them differently through time. It seems this art is provoking people and getting them to talk. Good for art. Good art will do this. The Ashton movie? I didn't see it, but it wasn't "art". It was just a movie.
My reaction too... OMG... if it wasn't for Jobs the graphical user interface and mouse may have just died in Xerox Parc and delayed the single biggest advancement in computers of the century. Xerox may have thought of it, but Apple and SJ made it real and accessible to everyone.
As far as the movie goes... I'll probably see it because it is suppose to be a good drama... but not a bio of the real Steve Jobs. I'm sure this movie will give the Anti-Apple/SJ crowd a lot to spew over.
Well Actually that is what a 2 Minute trailer is trying to do get you to find a movie good enough so that you will part with your money and Time and go watch it. So using that Premise it has failed..
Care to explain why Xerox sued Apple if that was the case?
Is this the same Apple that has executives running all over the place talking about how the movie isn't an accurate portrayal of Jobs? Besides, Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregation site, that builds its ratings on reviews of many independent sources. So please get real.
If you are making a Movie about somebody who is still living or is still remembered, being the fact that there are people who knew Him or Her, you have a different obligation towards the Story you are telling, then when the person has transcended into History. If by your own admission you decided then to create Fiction, and correctly called out as Opportunistic then call the move Job Stevenson or anything else but not Steve Jobs.
You're being kind. I can see it being on video by the end of November. Movies don't stay dedicated to theaters for very long.