Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'Steve Jobs' Disappoints in First Full Weekend With 7th-Place Box Office Showing

Reminds me of U2 movies. I remember loving the band U2. Everyone did, it seemed, back in the day. And then they came out with the movie, 'Rattle & Hum,' and it bombed. It seemed so incongruous that a popular rock group would fail on the silver screen. But fail they did, and perhaps that's the message here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
firewood said:
You read about him? There are people who actually worked with him for several years who say Fassbender's characterization is a complete fiction, capturing nothing like the Steve they knew. Who do you think I believe more?
Click to expand...

And there are also people who actually worked with him for several years who say the characterization is spot on, so you should pit their opinions against each other instead of pitting them against mine. It is precisely because of their varied opinions that I found the movie to be a great portrayal of a controversial figure, showing him in neither too negative or too positive of a light, again, based on what I've read, which includes things said by those closest to him.
 
bobob said:
q.v.: Jurassic World
Click to expand...
Counter argument: Transformers.

Case in point: you cannot credit a film's financial success to its quality solely. Good reviews and word-of-mouth can go a long way in ensuring lasting appeal in theatres (minimal weekend-to-weekend dropoffs, higher than expected grosses), but there are a ton of great films that fail to turn a profit, and a lot of awful films make obscene amounts of money.
 
I never met and never knew Steve Jobs, I didn't read the book. I've owned Apple computers starting with a dark age 6115 and other gadgets, but I went into the film with no pre-conceived notion other than what I saw in the previews.
Guess what? I thought that it should get a half dozen Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor and Actress and Best Screenplay. For me the movie was like watching a good play with expanded content. Yes, I'm sure that it was not historically accurate, nor a hundred percent accurate on who these characters really were, but I didn't go to a documentary, and the fact that Sorkin took artistic liberties bothers me not a whit, so long as I was entertained, and I was.

More to the point, I think that if Steve Jobs saw the movie, and I am only speculating on him being human like the rest of us, that he would be pleased in how the story was shaped around his relationship with his daughter and how that relationship evolved. As a piece of movie-making, it is the best of the year so far, and is well worth seeing.

Again, don't expect to see a history of Apple and a lot of insider stuff about how Apple was formed and became the powerhouse it is. I would not want to see that movie, it would be very long and very boring. This movie focuses on three days in a relatively short time frame of Apple history, and is concerned not so much with the computers that were created, but the people who helped create them and above all the man named in the title. You may not like him, but if you pay attention, you will see that the him at the beginning is not the him at the end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jayducharme and Bill Killer
CFreymarc said:
This is often called a "highbrow audience" where it fails to capture the masses as it is too much of a drama with it the standard protagonist / antagonist storyline.

I expect this to do very well in the DVD and streaming market and pebbly end of as a cult movie amongst the Apple hardcore. Do not expect a sequel for five to ten years.
Click to expand...
A sequel?
"Steve Jobs: Jobs Harder"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrxak
CFreymarc said:
My take is now that the serious dramas about Silicon Valley are done, it is time to bring out the rubber chicken and start some comedy scripts. The whole Atari story is begging for a screwball-style comedy movie.
Click to expand...

Personally, I'm waiting for the biopic about Ron Popeil :D

He was not only a businessman and super salesman, he was also the actual inventor of many of his original products.

But wait! There's more... !
 
  • Like
Reactions: WigWag Workshop, Avalontor, bobob and 1 other person
so how do these things work guys? how are people allowed to make inaccurate portrayals of prominent people if said relatives are alive to get a accurate portrayal i was interested in watching this, but if its inaccurate whats the point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Essentially, we have a movie about someone who dies coming out four years after his death, with one movie already released.
While this film, in my opinion, is vastly superior to the Ashton Lifetime movie that proceeded it, it's also been four years. Steve Jobs is influential, he's not Gandhi or Lincoln or MLK. He doesn't carry that kind of historical cache. Then you add the criticisms into the mix. And take whatever Woz said with a grain of salt. He did get paid to work as a consultant on the film. Immediate bias, if you ask me.

Also, it did well in NY and LA in limited release, but middle America just doesn't give a crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: H2SO4
I went to see it on Friday and there was only one ... yes one ... other person at the afternoon showing!

Completely underwhelming. We need to get the word out that this is a real snoozer to be avoided. The studio may not even make their $30 mil back when they include DVD sales.

Would have been much more successful if they'd have cut out the lengthy Woz whining and continued on with the big Jobs achievements after the original iMac.

People who hadn't followed Jobs for years and years (or read the book this movie was based on) wouldn't have a clue. In short, the movie sucks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost and bobob
The movie was fine but do we really need a discussion about why a movie about company politics and power point presentations 'bombed'? Also, it's going to pick up oscars and has a low budget so it will be fine in the long run. The Social Network which was arguably the best hollywood movie in the last ten years didn't even make 100-mil. So, I think it's fair to say the public appetite for tech industry movies is low.
 
tomaki said:
Not surprised really. I mean, I'm probably not the only one who likes Apple PRODUCTS, not the religion or cult or the figureheads or politics.

I'm not interested in the people who made my toaster or my car or my television either. Why should my computer be any different?
Click to expand...

I don't know, a movie about the life and times of Charles Strite (Inventor of the toaster) sounds like box office gold;)
 
I can't say I'm surprised. I don't think the general public would pay $10 to go see a movie like this, unless you're a fan of Apple or a tech nerd. Plus the previous Jobs movie failed critically, so people are more reserved this time. It will be hit on dvd rental and netflix for sure though.
 
Sonmi451 said:
I need to tell you when to stop because you obviously haven't figured it out on your own.
Click to expand...

Uh, wasn't me who repeated the meme you disliked :)

Maschil said:
so how do these things work guys? how are people allowed to make inaccurate portrayals of prominent people if said relatives are alive to get a accurate portrayal i was interested in watching this, but if its inaccurate whats the point.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I'd bet good money that most (but not all) of the movies we've ever seen for decades about historical figures (and events) have been ridiculously inaccurate in one way or another.

Mashing together timelines and making composite characters are common shortcuts, but I guess understandable. Otherwise they'd have to make a mini-series to pack it all in.

Not that I like it. For instance, I cringed in disbelief when that Pearl Harbor movie with Affleck portrayed American leaders listening in real time to the Doolittle Raiders flying over Japan, half a world away. The actual reality back then of NOT being able to know immediately how the attack was going, is actually more dramatic and tense to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avalontor
Felix01 said:
I went to see it on Friday and there was only one ... yes one ... other person at the afternoon showing!

Completely underwhelming. We need to get the word out that this is a real snoozer to be avoided. The studio may not even make their $30 mil back when they include DVD sales.

Would have been much more successful if they'd have cut out the lengthy Woz whining and continued on with the big Jobs achievements after the original iMac.

People who hadn't followed Jobs for years and years (or read the book this movie was based on) wouldn't have a clue. In short, the movie sucks.
Click to expand...
No, it wouldn't have. What you wanted was the film to tell a much different story than what you wanted it to tell. By showing later Apple product launches and Jobs's successes, you actually greatly undercutting one of the primary themes of Sorkin's script being that the best part of who you are isn't necessarily the product you create.
 
Just returned from seeing the movie. How people respond to this movie will depend on why they enjoy going to the movies. If you are looking for great dialog (and nobody does it better than Aaron Sorkin) and acting that is Oscar worthy the you will walk out satiated. Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet are probably shoe-ins for nominations. I have never much liked Seth Rogan but he is excellent as Steve Wozniak as is Jeff Daniels as John Scully.

The movie portrays Job's as a very flawed individual when it comes to his personal relationships. Linda left really disliking him.

This has been a weak year at the movies so this easily moves into the handful of better releases I have seen so far. In any case the dialog and acting could compete in any recent year.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back