Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I had to read this post like 3 times before I realized there was no sarcasm tag.

If it wasn't for Nicola Tesla, Steve Jobs would have been a nobody.

Our education system has truly failed.
What?

The post said very clearly "If it were a movie about Nicola Tesla, Hewelet and Packard (the founders), Fairchild, etc... Would it make that much money? Don't think so..."

That doesn't need sarcasm and you are basically saying the same thing.

o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: John.B
Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

Yeah, I think the same way. I only go now to the movies if it is a film I am really anticipating and is visually stunning to deserve seeing on a huge screen. Honestly, because of the high prices the movie experience I much rather wait to watch it at home at a fraction of the price.
Unless it is kids movies that sometimes I break this rule so my two boys can enjoy the experience.
Nowadays, I maybe go two or max three times for myself to the movies per year. That's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Very smart. A movie about Jobs has been done 2 or 3 times? (not documentaries). Just like the article says, it will create buzz.
 
Yeah, I think the same way. I only go now to the movies if it is a film I am really anticipating and is visually stunning to deserve seeing on a huge screen. Honestly, because of the high prices the movie experience I much rather wait to watch it at home at a fraction of the price.
Unless it is kids movies that sometimes I break this rule so my two boys can enjoy the experience.
Nowadays, I maybe go two or max three times for myself to the movies per year. That's about it.

I usually go on Saturday Morning. AMC has $6.50 tickets.
 
Is it a slow news day today? I mean this is the only new story since Saturday and Monday is nearly over? must be some more news out there, rather then yet another Jobs film?

Although it might be good, I thought the film about Facebook, The Social Network, would be rubbish until I watched it and was pleasantly surprised by a good film with good acting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5105973
I think that there are multiple factors in play. Some people don't have the patience to wait to see a movie they have been anticipating. Others just love the "going to the movies" experience (I don't). I think that for many of them the idea of spending $35-$40 for an evening out at a movie with a friend/date/significant other is budget friendly compared to other forms entertainment, such as a meal at a restaurant, and a couple of drinks at a bar. Plus there's the "shared experience" aspect of going to a movie. Sort of like the people who like to line up at the Apple store on iPhone release day.

I, personally am with you. I will generally wait for a movie to come to my home, and rarely do I find a movie that I'm excited enough to see that I'm willing to put up with the costs and aggravation of going to the theater. But I understand why some people like it.

I think we are more annoyed with other people these days. We go to our phones for information and movies and music.

At our house I have a stack of movie tickets I got at work as recognitions. I can't even give them away to my kids. They would just rather watch something on their phones or MacBooks. I think we've only gone to the theater (and there are 20 screens 5 minutes from us) about once in the last 6 years.

I don't think people like to be cooped up with others. And we can't turn on our phones without annoying others, but then find others on their phones annoying us, or we anticipate someone's phone is going to go off during a movie...

In our house we are fortunate to have a 73" TV, but we still go to our laptops and phones to watch stuff. Because we have total control and can take the movies with us...to the kitchen or...

And if we don't like a movie, like how I felt about Jurassic World, it wasn't worth it to walk out (even though we had free tickets). And the other members of the family wanted to see it, and we may as well have sat there and watched it, but if we were at home...we can just turn it off...

Total control...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies.

Amongst otherw, two reasons:
  1. 400 inch > 40 inch
  2. A theater is a social gathering space where you can share with alikes
Good to have both options these days. No way Avatar@home is as good as in the theaters.
 
No way Avatar@home is as good as in the theaters.

IDK - at home it's easy to just walk away from that POS. At a theater, it's kind of hard to arrange for everyone to collectively walk out of a movie, so you're stuck there for the full 3 hours.

I'm really confused by all the people trying to use Avatar to defend theaters. That's literally the worst movie in existence - blowing it up from a 40" screen to a 400" screen in no way made the plot any better.
 
That's how much money talking about Steve Jobs (right or wrong) makes...

If it were a movie about Nicola Tesla, Hewelet and Packard (the founders), Fairchild, etc...

Would it make that much money?

Don't think so...

Depending on the actors and director but it would be actually super interesting. You have movies like The Imitation Game that was awesome and The Theory of Everything. There are plenty of movies you could do about that sort of personalities and they can be very successful titles. The sad thing is that studios want to play safe and do another Transformers movie even the last one was a sad film but it made money because of the target audience.

Something Hollywood is doing a lot too is misleading you with a huge Trailer to have a load of people with false expectations to go to the opening weekend. By Monday everybody will say it was crap but the damaged is done... the movie was a "success" because many people attended for misleading advertising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doelcm82
That's how much money talking about Steve Jobs (right or wrong) makes...

If it were a movie about Nicola Tesla, Hewelet and Packard (the founders), Fairchild, etc...

Would it make that much money?

Don't think so...
It's what THIS movie makes. One that happens to be well-written, well-acted, well-reviewed, and well-received (87% on Rotten Tomatoes). Two years ago we had Jobs which had a 27% score on RT. It didn't make the money that this one likely will.

A movie about Nikola Tesla could do better than Jobs, if it had the right cast, the right director, and a compelling story. The Imitation Game, about a man who is at least as obscure (but important to the course of history) as Tesla brought in $91 million. A Beautiful Mind, about a mathematician whose name would not even ring a bell with the typical moviegoer, fetched $171 million.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AngerDanger
People predicting only 20 million when it goes wide are going to be in a shock after that weekend. This thing is putting up American Sniper per screen averages, and that opened to around 90 million when it went wide. Yes, they're not exactly the same thing, but 20 million is too low of an estimate.
I think the "rah rah Murica" mentality that lesser intelligent people looked for in American Sniper is somewhat missing from this film.
 
IDK - at home it's easy to just walk away from that POS. At a theater, it's kind of hard to arrange for everyone to collectively walk out of a movie, so you're stuck there for the full 3 hours.

I'm really confused by all the people trying to use Avatar to defend theaters. That's literally the worst movie in existence - blowing it up from a 40" screen to a 400" screen in no way made the plot any better.

Madness, pure madness.

Avatar was scintillating! I can't believe you didn't enjoy it.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Some like Bach, others like Crazy Frog. Go figure.
 
IDK - at home it's easy to just walk away from that POS. At a theater, it's kind of hard to arrange for everyone to collectively walk out of a movie, so you're stuck there for the full 3 hours.

I'm really confused by all the people trying to use Avatar to defend theaters. That's literally the worst movie in existence - blowing it up from a 40" screen to a 400" screen in no way made the plot any better.

Avatar on my 46" UHD is awesome but in 3D on an IMAX screen was mind boggling.
Should have been a Disney ride. :eek:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

While going to the movies may be a family event, date or some special occasion, it is hardly necessary to pay
the high prices for tickets or the horse buckets of pop corn.
But people go for the experience.

Watching at home has a lot of advantages.
Start time when I want, stop and take a break to get some food/drink, wind back if one doesn't understand what somebody says. Nobody talking or coughing and, and, and..................

To be honest that is however a bah humbug style for older folks like me.

So, to each his own and again, if it's worth for 3D (overrated) and a larger screen visual it usually isn't worth it.

This movie for sure can be waited for on cable/streaming etc.
 
People predicting only 20 million when it goes wide are going to be in a shock after that weekend. This thing is putting up American Sniper per screen averages, and that opened to around 90 million when it went wide. Yes, they're not exactly the same thing, but 20 million is too low of an estimate.
Ok Steve Jobs was also an American Sniper.
Mac, ipod, iphone , Ipad all sniper style taking away entire markets from the competition.
 
Jobs will rest just fine. I'm interested in this news.
I was being sarcastic. Unless anybody actually thinks we're alerted when we're mentioned posthumously, it should be pretty obvious that news articles and movies don't interrupt dirt naps.
 
Just slightly off topic - I am wondering about the whole going to the movies thing. Pretty much everyone now has a large TV screen at home (for the sake of argument say 40 inch or larger). With streaming like Netflix or Apple TV, I really don't see why people are drawn to pay so much to go to the movies. I will wait for this to come to one of my streaming services and then maybe I will watch it. But paying over $20 just for the tickets (not to mention transportation and other expenses associated with going out), for a movie that will play well on my screen at home makes no sense. Congrats to the movie for making tons of money, but please wait a little while longer before you get a few dollars from me.

Agreed. In 2006 I bought a decent home theater projector, built a 110" screen, added a power sub to the surround sound and haven't been to a theater since 2007. I'm just too distracted by noise. Between phones ringing, people talking, folks milling about, kids occasionally running, the crumpling of bags, etc., I never enjoy a movie in a crowded theater. I buy an updated projector every few years and it's really worked out well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.