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

[PlainviewX]

Sure they are connected, unless of course you think you are much much smarter than the average person. I see your way of thinking, most really dumb people will spend their money on any piece of crap movie, it is only us smart people that know how to appreciate the real art.

Yes, my theater classes tried to convince me and my wife that we should consider ourselves smarter than others to appreciate the real value in uninspired uninteresting performance art, but we never bought it. We do see some plays that are really good, love to go to the theater or movies, but we have found a solid correlation between empty seats and lack of enjoyment, in spite of what the marketing people try to sell.

Quality and ticket sales has never equated. You have one terrible film as the highest grossing film of all-time, Avatar. It was entertaining to many, but, it's not a good film. Jurassic World is number three. That completely destroys your argument. The Assassination of Jesse James made only $14 million worldwide. That film buries the top ten grossing films of all-time in terms of quality filmmaking.

 

[Bill Killer]

Besides the obvious flaws of factual inaccuracy and hiring a leading man who doesn't have much pull, what the movie really lacked was a significant villain (Jobs had to do double duty as hero and villain!). The movie reminds me of "Tucker", a decent enough pic but a box office bomb that didn't break even. (And "Tucker" had plenty of villains for screenwriters to work with: dirty politicians, greedy industrialists, etc., and yet they couldn't make the story compelling enough to bring in the crowds.)

You have terrible film critiquing technique. You are basically condemning the film for not having established cliches and predictable genre tropes.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

You have terrible film critiquing technique. You are basically condemning the film for not having established cliches and predictable genre tropes.

I'm condemning the film for not being interesting unless you like talkfests. It's not even factually accurate, so the talkfest is much ado about nothing.

Since they weren't interested in telling the real story of Jobs's life, a villain would no doubt have made the story more satisfying.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

I dont get where you are going, you agree the revolution was napster but then follow it up with diatribe about how apple did it. They copied!!! Even amongst hard core apple fans iTunes is lambasted as the worst thing ever.

Sept 1998? see the middle!!
or the later ones...

Or the B&O’s Beosound from the year before the iPod release - wow, that looks erm.... kinda like a??
Hell i can't be bothered to paste the images, so take a look..
http://anythingbutipod.com/2008/03/10th-anniversay-of-the-mp3-player/


Credit where credit is due, he made it legal, but that was based on the timing as i hinted at above and the musics industries desire to save itself.

I get on well with all my bosses and can sit down and express issue and opportunities, and yes i work in tech that's also based in the valley.

I assume you're replying to me.

Once again, where in all those pics is the rotating wheel that made the iPod so iconic? You do know the difference between a rotating wheel and a round button that can only be pressed up, down, left, right or center don't you?

 

[AFEPPL]

You clearly want to just argue and nothing anyone could ever say would move your opinion so lets just leave it there shall we.. and you can just continue in #fandom.

 

[bobob]

Once again, where in all those pics is the rotating wheel that made the iPod so iconic? You do know the difference between a rotating wheel and a round button that can only be pressed up, down, left, right or center don't you?

You clearly want to just argue and nothing anyone could ever say would move your opinion so lets just leave it there shall we.. and you can just continue in #fandom.

DUCKofD3ATH's facts put an end to your argument, so why would he continue?

 

[AFEPPL]

in what way - apple created nothing and copied everything?
The wheel was copied, the idea was someone elses apple packaged it...!

It is not widely known that Apple did not develop the click wheel; Synaptics came up with the design for the device. The end..

 

[Bill Killer]

I'm condemning the film for not being interesting unless you like talkfests. It's not even factually accurate, so the talkfest is much ado about nothing.

Since they weren't interested in telling the real story of Jobs's life, a villain would no doubt have made the story more satisfying.

You call it a talkfest as if that's a bad thing. Intriguing dialogue that both progresses the story and builds the characters is so rarely utilized as effectively as it is in this film, and this film deserves significant credit for taking a very unconventional story structure and making it work.

And no, factually accurate isn't a factor in the quality of the film. This film isn't about the life of Steve Jobs. If it was, you would have seen something similar to the excruciatingly pedestrian and uninspired Kutcher film. The film takes three moments in time and builds a character around those scenes. How he built Apple is frankly irrelevant and inconsequential to the point the filmmakers were trying to make. Creating a character with depth and growth without resorting to the typical "highlights of his life" structure is what makes the film such a thematic success.

You want a "Jobs is great and did great things film". The filmmakers had no interest in telling that story. Apple and Steve Jobs don't need even more of a collective blowjob from its more ardent fanboys. Telling a story that attempts to decipher the difference between a great innovator/mind and a good person was an intriguing concept. I was along for the ride.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

You call it a talkfest as if that's a bad thing.

Yes. I'm not interested in hearing characters natter on with nary an exploding car in sight. Most theater goers agree with me, which is a large part of why the movie is tanking (the other parts including the factual inaccuracy, lack of a big name draw for the lead, etc.).

Intriguing dialogue that both progresses the story and builds the characters is so rarely utilized as effectively as it is in this film, and this film deserves significant credit for taking a very unconventional story structure and making it work.

You like talkfests, so this one could have been made just for you. And the dozen or so other people who'll go to see it.

And no, factually accurate isn't a factor in the quality of the film. This film isn't about the life of Steve Jobs. If it was, you would have seen something similar to the excruciatingly pedestrian and uninspired Kutcher film. The film takes three moments in time and builds a character around those scenes. How he built Apple is frankly irrelevant and inconsequential to the point the filmmakers were trying to make. Creating a character with depth and growth without resorting to the typical "highlights of his life" structure is what makes the film such a thematic success.

"This film isn't about the life of Steve Jobs". Movie title: "Steve Jobs"

What exactly was the point the filmmakers were trying to make if it wasn't to tell the audience about Steve Jobs and what made him unique?

You want a "Jobs is great and did great things film".

Nope. I want a Steve Jobs did great things and changed the world for the better. What made him tick? How did he accomplish so much? You know, the things that made him exceptional.

Instead, we get a movie that could be about any schmo (a bad dad--oooooo! that's so original!) in any line of work that requires giving presentations. Yawn.

The filmmakers had no interest in telling that story.

Then they were off to a good start. What a shame they then promptly screwed up and went with the Very-Special-Episode-of-Steve-Job's-Life format that few will pony up coin to see.

Apple and Steve Jobs don't need even more of a collective blowjob from its more ardent fanboys. Telling a story that attempts to decipher the difference between a great innovator/mind and a good person was an intriguing concept. I was along for the ride.

And you enjoyed their made-up story about someone who never existed saying things he didn't say. Wow! Now That's What I Call Entertainment!

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

accidental post

 

[Bill Killer]

Yes. I'm not interested in hearing characters natter on with nary an exploding car in sight. Most theater goers agree with me, which is a large part of why the movie is tanking (the other parts including the factual inaccuracy, lack of a big name draw for the lead, etc.).

If the lack of bright lights and loud noises is why is why you had issues with the film, then this film was too high brow and advanced for you.

You like talkfests, so this one could have been made just for you. And the dozen or so other people who'll go to see it.

The quality of the film and the theatrical domestic gross of the film are laregly unrelated. People are stupid.

"This film isn't about the life of Steve Jobs". Movie title: "Steve Jobs"

Use your brain. The film was told is 3 real-time acts. The structure of the script doesn't allow for a life story. Use some real critical thinking.

What exactly was the point the filmmakers were trying to make if it wasn't to tell the audience about Steve Jobs and what made him unique?

I already answered this.

Nope. I want a Steve Jobs did great things and changed the world for the better. What made him tick? How did he accomplish so much? You know, the things that made him exceptional.

You want an Apple-produced puff piece. Something they'd produce alongside Jony Ive over exaggerating about the design of a new product.

Instead, we get a movie that could be about any schmo (a bad dad--oooooo! that's so original!) in any line of work that requires giving presentations. Yawn.

Unsurprisingly, the film went over your head. It specifically highlighted the disparity between a great public persona and a troubled personal persona. That conflict and difference produced a complex, morally gray character. That's fascinating.

Then they were off to a good start. What a shame they then promptly screwed up and went with the Very-Special-Episode-of-Steve-Job's-Life format that few will pony up coin to see.

Once again, quality of the film and the total theatrical paid viewers are largely unrelated. Because people are stupid.

And you enjoyed their made-up story about someone who never existed saying things he didn't say. Wow! Now That's What I Call Entertainment!

None of the filmmakers claimed this was wholly accurate. You're whining about a claim never made by those involved with the film. The film is a portrait of one interpretation of Jobs, not a final conclusion. This interpretation of Jobs was a great vehicle to tell a great story in a unique structure.

Provide smarter critical thinking. You wanted the film to be a dumbed down piece of utter praise. That's a misguided and inferior lie.

 

[AFEPPL]

Maybe i missed something - even historical based films are generally a dramatisations of key events with a mix of story/continuity fillers to make the story flow. Last time i looked Pearl Harbour didn't happen the way it was shown on the big screen.

It's not the film, it's the content/subject of the film, 99% of people don't care a crap about "steve".
Move on time.

When's StarWars out? - Lets hope they get that factually correct..

 

[bobob]

Maybe i missed something - even historical based films are generally a dramatisations of key events with a mix of story/continuity fillers to make the story flow. Last time i looked Pearl Harbour didn't happen the way it was shown on the big screen.

I can't seem to find your review of this film - - what was your opinion of how good a movie it turned out to be?

It's not the film, it's the content/subject of the film, 99% of people don't care a crap about "steve".

In the case of this particular movie, it's not the content/subject, but rather the pretentious artsy style.

 

[DUCKofD3ATH]

If the lack of bright lights and loud noises is why is why you had issues with the film, then this film was too high brow and advanced for you.

It's too bad that someone as high browed and advanced as yourself fails when it come to reading my posts.

Given that, there's hardly any point in my making points, is there?

 

[nt5672]

Quality and ticket sales has never equated. You have one terrible film as the highest grossing film of all-time, Avatar. It was entertaining to many, but, it's not a good film. Jurassic World is number three. That completely destroys your argument. The Assassination of Jesse James made only $14 million worldwide. That film buries the top ten grossing films of all-time in terms of quality filmmaking.

In your mind maybe, but not in the mind of the majority. So who is right the 10 people that saw the The Assassination of Jesse James or the millions that saw Avatar. It is just elitism to think that quality does not relate to ticket sales. And yes, all my theater classes in college tried to make me believe this difference existed, they failed.

Oh I see you used that trick. You equate quality filmmaking with quality films. I agree that the two are not the same, but then who cares about quality filmmaking if the film is not worth seeing. It like saying that a car is the best in the world because it has great lug nuts. Who cares about lug nuts?

 

[bobob]

In your mind maybe, but not in the mind of the majority. So who is right the 10 people that saw the The Assassination of Jesse James or the millions that saw Avatar. It is just elitism to think that quality does not relate to ticket sales. And yes, all my theater classes in college tried to make me believe this difference existed, they failed.

Oh I see you used that trick. You equate quality filmmaking with quality films. I agree that the two are not the same, but then who cares about quality filmmaking if the film is not worth seeing. It like saying that a car is the best in the world because it has great lug nuts. Who cares about lug nuts?

ergo: McDonald's makes the best food in the world!

 

[Essenar]

If the lack of bright lights and loud noises is why is why you had issues with the film, then this film was too high brow and advanced for you.


The quality of the film and the theatrical domestic gross of the film are laregly unrelated. People are stupid.



Use your brain. The film was told is 3 real-time acts. The structure of the script doesn't allow for a life story. Use some real critical thinking.



I already answered this.



You want an Apple-produced puff piece. Something they'd produce alongside Jony Ive over exaggerating about the design of a new product.


Unsurprisingly, the film went over your head. It specifically highlighted the disparity between a great public persona and a troubled personal persona. That conflict and difference produced a complex, morally gray character. That's fascinating.


Once again, quality of the film and the total theatrical paid viewers are largely unrelated. Because people are stupid.


None of the filmmakers claimed this was wholly accurate. You're whining about a claim never made by those involved with the film. The film is a portrait of one interpretation of Jobs, not a final conclusion. This interpretation of Jobs was a great vehicle to tell a great story in a unique structure.

Provide smarter critical thinking. You wanted the film to be a dumbed down piece of utter praise. That's a misguided and inferior lie.

It's pretty obvious you are lacking in a lot of structural knowledge about both "biopic films" and "Steve Jobs".

The issue most take with the film, and the reason why the film is "bombing" (despite the critical acclaim of an accomplished reviewer such as yourself), is because it failed to capture the actual iconic moments that defined who Steve Jobs was and who he "became".

We've already heard the story about Lisa/L.I.S.A., Jobs getting fired, Jobs getting rehired and releasing the iPod. It's not a telling story. Those are not the most defining moments of the enigma that is Steve Jobs. If you're going to tell the story about a man from the tech industry THREE times, we need one of those times to focus on the professional growth that defined him.

Every day, developers like me are connected to Steve Jobs because of what he did with NeXTStep. Literally every application you download from the App Store, and use on your MacBook, are living breathing remnants of what Jobs did with OOP at NeXT Software. People don't even realize how important it was, I don't even see Jobs fanboys bringing up what he did with Xerox and NeXT and it's arguably the biggest contribution he made as an engineer. Years after the iMac and iPod are nothing but archaic relics of a time when physical machines connected to electric outlets tethering users to desks or using spinning disks to access data, NeXT will still live on.

Think about that. In 1997, the things he did with NeXT were so meaningful, that we started using them in devices that didn't release until decades later.

 

[Bill Killer]

The issue most take with the film, and the reason why the film is "bombing" (despite the critical acclaim of an accomplished reviewer such as yourself), is because it failed to capture the actual iconic moments that defined who Steve Jobs was and who he "became".

Go watch the Kutcher film. That film decided to focus on the iconic moments of his career. This film didn't want to tell that story. Apple fanboys wanted the film to tell a story that the film wasn't interested in telling. That's not a mark against the film; that's a preconceived notion affecting their opinions.

One of the worst habits of film criticism is criticizing a film for elements external to the film's control. Criticizing the film for not telling the story you wanted told is not legitimate or valid criticism. Criticizing the film for failing to deliver on its own ambitions is valid criticism.

 

[Bill Killer]

In your mind maybe, but not in the mind of the majority. So who is right the 10 people that saw the The Assassination of Jesse James or the millions that saw Avatar. It is just elitism to think that quality does not relate to ticket sales. And yes, all my theater classes in college tried to make me believe this difference existed, they failed.

Oh I see you used that trick. You equate quality filmmaking with quality films. I agree that the two are not the same, but then who cares about quality filmmaking if the film is not worth seeing. It like saying that a car is the best in the world because it has great lug nuts. Who cares about lug nuts?

1. How can it be elitism when it's right? Just because a lot of people like a film doesn't mean it's a good film. Not everyone's opinion is worth the same weight because some who make filmmaking and film critique their personal and professional lives are vastly more suitable to understand what makes a film a clearly quality product.

In addition, a monster opening weekend for a film absolutely does not mean the film is good. A huge opening weekend means one of either 2 things:

-The studios' marketing departments did an excellent job selling the idea of the film.
-The previous film in that particular franchise earned a significant amount of goodwill for the second film.

The first Pirates of the Caribbean film is actually one of those rare examples when quality and box office were directly correlated. It had a modest, unspectacular opening weekend, but it stayed in theatres longer than any film that summer due to excellent word of mouth, allowing it to earn a great final worldwide gross due to small weakly drops. Every subsequent film in that series opened and finished with greater numbers due to the goodwill established in that first film, not because they were better films.

The general public may make Transformers profitable, but it's people like critics and those who follow film far more closely that make sure gems like The Grand Budapest Hotel or Birdman aren't lost in obscurity.

2. If the wheel falls off because the lug nuts are faulty, then that affects the performance and quality of the car as a whole. You can't take a component of a film and consider it an external aspect. The cumulative qualities (directing, acting, pacing, screenplay....) very often lead to a quality film.

 

[vanylapep]

I'm waiting for Steve Jobs 2S Plus

 

[nt5672]

ergo: McDonald's makes the best food in the world!

But people won't pay more than a few dollars for their food because of the quality and everyone knows that. Their food still does a good just of its essential benefit, keeping people alive. For movies the essential benefit is entertainment. Since most movies are the same relative cost, box office revenue is a good judge of how entertaining a movie is and for McDonalds the price of the meal is a good judge of the quality, not the total revenue of all meals.

 

[nt5672]

1. How can it be elitism when it's right? Just because a lot of people like a film doesn't mean it's a good film. Not everyone's opinion is worth the same weight because some who make filmmaking and film critique their personal and professional lives are vastly more suitable to understand what makes a film a clearly quality product. . . . .

No, its just a good excuse to make when your film bombs at the box office. Their job is to make money. That requires people paying at the box office and if you think the professionals purposely made the choice to make a good film, knowing it would not make money, then I don't know what to say. That view just seems delusional to me. No investor would spend millions of dollars knowing it was going to be lost. Movies are made for the non-professional, not the professional and it is just an excuse when the movie bombs. What is an even bigger insult is to give an sward for a movie that bombs.

. . .
In addition, a monster opening weekend for a film absolutely does not mean the film is good. A huge opening weekend means one of either 2 things:

-The studios' marketing departments did an excellent job selling the idea of the film.
-The previous film in that particular franchise earned a significant amount of goodwill for the second film.

The first Pirates of the Caribbean film is actually one of those rare examples when quality and box office were directly correlated. It had a modest, unspectacular opening weekend, but it stayed in theatres longer than any film that summer due to excellent word of mouth, allowing it to earn a great final worldwide gross due to small weakly drops. Every subsequent film in that series opened and finished with greater numbers due to the goodwill established in that first film, not because they were better films.

The general public may make Transformers profitable, but it's people like critics and those who follow film far more closely that make sure gems like The Grand Budapest Hotel or Birdman aren't lost in obscurity.
. . .

All good points, but I was referring to total box office, not just opening weekend. It is very true that marketing can and does cause many people to go see terrible films, but eventually people catch on.

 

[John.B]

or the later ones...

I had one of those -- it's probably still around in a box somewhere -- and it was just a four way button (up/down/left/right), nothing like a clickwheel except for being round.

 

[Bill Killer]

No, its just a good excuse to make when your film bombs at the box office. Their job is to make money. That requires people paying at the box office and if you think the professionals purposely made the choice to make a good film, knowing it would not make money, then I don't know what to say. That view just seems delusional to me. No investor would spend millions of dollars knowing it was going to be lost. Movies are made for the non-professional, not the professional and it is just an excuse when the movie bombs. What is an even bigger insult is to give an sward for a movie that bombs.

You've just went and negated the idea that art, storytelling, and perseverance have any place in this world. It costs a lot of money to make a film, but putting the financier above the storyteller, filmmaker, actor, and writer in terms of creating real art and emotion is about the most cynical thing I could read.

I appreciate film and love when filmmakers take risks and attempt new things. The end box office result is irrelevant. Not every film is garnered the same opportunity to succeed, and some great films (Steve Jobs) are given it, and people unfortunately decide that junk like Goosebumps is a better investment.

Films are both an art form and a business. Thinking that the non-professional, non-appreciative individual is best to judge which is worth more in the grand scheme of things is one of the most foolish things you can do for the art.

All good points, but I was referring to total box office, not just opening weekend. It is very true that marketing can and does cause many people to go see terrible films, but eventually people catch on.

They haven't for far too many movies. The Star Wars prequels were awful, but made a ton of money. So did the three Pirates sequels. The goodwill that Pixar earned allowed the Cars franchise to earn 3 films. We've had 7 Saw films, 3 Human Centipede monstrosities, 2 awful Alien v. Predator films, and even more just obscenely ridiculous Aaron Seltzer/Jason Friedman films that waste everyone's time. There are a significant amount of examples where terrible films succeed financially (especially the last example) and a ton of good films that lose money. By conclusion, you have to assume the correlation is weak.

 

[Ellmer]

Really?!? Hoffman left NEXT in the early 1990s and completely retired from the industry by 1995. But, the movie shows her as a key person (and still employed by Jobs) at the 1998 iMac intro. That's a HUGE fabrication. Sorkin told a story he wanted to tell and grafted Jobs onto it for notoriety.

It seems you completely missed the part where I said it was a fantastic film regardless of the details.