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

Agreed. I have been annoyed at going to movies for far longer than personal technology gave me the power to avoid the theater experience. People who talk. People who show up 10 minutes into the movie, etc.
 
I went to see it in NYC last night.
I think it's beautifully crafted. Kate Winslet is the star of this movie.

I don't get why Jobs' wife wanted to kill this project. They still showed him as a loving and caring person.

Because people only want the good things remembered about their deceased kin.
 
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.

I'm not saying this is a bad or good movie.

I hope it's a good movie.

But I would like to see what people that really knew Steve Jobs, his wife, daughter, parents, Apple people, his best friend (Larry Ellison), Woz, etc... have to say about the movie...

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.

I don't think so... really... wouldn't get as much attention as a man that everybody has heard talk about at least once, and is contemporary, and has videos of him on the Internet.

The Imitation Game is much more about a man, it's about an era, and about homosexuality, not just about a single man...
 
A successful limited release doesn't guarantee a successful nationwide release. I would have to imagine that a huge percentage of the film's audience in NY and LA are comprised of hardcore Apple fans. Will general movie goers flock to theaters to see this? If there is Oscar consideration, then perhaps they will.
I think you'll find more moviegoers in NY and LA seeing it because they're fans of Aaron Sorkin's writing, David Fincher, and Michael Fassbender. I don't think you necessarily need "Apple fans" for the movie to do well. Everyone made fun of the idea of a Facebook movie, but it did really well. Why? It was good. Acting, directing, writing, editing, etc. That's all you really need.
 
I watched it in NYC on Friday at 6:30pm. The theater was completely packed and all the following shows were already sold out.
I liked the movie a lot. Very real and emotional. I wish the story didn't stop in 1998 with the release of the iMac.
Maybe a part 2 is on its way. That would be a good move.



Only a limited number of fans have been able to see Steve Jobs over the weekend, thanks to its initial small scale release in only Los Angeles and New York on October 9. Despite that limited run, the Danny Boyle-directed film has debuted with impressive numbers, making $521,000 in its first weekend with a per-theater average of $130,250 (via Variety).

steve-jobs-film-800x460.jpg

Although those numbers landed the movie well below any top-earning spot for the weekend box office at large (it placed sixteenth overall), that per-theater average places Steve Jobs as the fifteenth highest PTA figure in film history. As the rollout for the film expands -- 25 new markets and 60 theaters on October 16, and then 2,000 theaters on October 23 -- Universal has doubled down on its release strategy, believing the slow trickle to wide release will help generate positive word of mouth.
Universal hopes these limited release numbers translate into bigger returns when Steve Jobs debuts in wide release next weekend, aiming for a similar trajectory as The Social Network's $97 million overall domestic haul. Current analysts predict at least a $20 million opening wide release weekend for the new film, pointing to the ubiquity of Apple products, largely positive early reviews, and the audience's hunt for "prestige movies" at this time of year as the main factors for its potential success.

Article Link: 'Steve Jobs' Film Debuts Impressively in Limited Release
 
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.

I pay $11 to watch a night time showing. And I pay $6.75 if it's on Tuesday (half-off). I don't know what kind of theater you are going to that are charging $20. Of course, if you're counting popcorn and drinks, you can easily reach that amount. That's why I don't buy popcorn or drinks, because I don't like popcorn and I don't want to miss a scene by going to the restroom. There is something special about watching a giant screen and crazy sound that no home theater setup can mimick. Plus I find that I don't pay as much attention to the film if I watch stuff at home --- too many distractions (smartphone, friends/family). Of course, I usually go to the theaters for thrillers, horror flicks, action/adventure movies, and superhero films. Feel good dramas, biopics, and the like --I usually reserve for home viewing.

That said, I will wait for this Steve Jobs film to show up on Prime or Netflix :)
 
They've certainly done enough advertising for the movie. I see ads for it all over tv and the internet. I still don't have any interest in seeing it though. Something about seeing Fassbender as Jobs just makes me not want to see it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
A successful limited release doesn't guarantee a successful nationwide release. I would have to imagine that a huge percentage of the film's audience in NY and LA are comprised of hardcore Apple fans. Will general movie goers flock to theaters to see this? If there is Oscar consideration, then perhaps they will.

Actually given how many movies get limited release it does mean something. So many movies are released only in New York and LA and never anywhere else. In many cases the producers/studio actually have to rent the theaters just to get them released. Besides being a requisite for pretty much all movie rewards some movies have contractual reasons to come out in limited release.

In the case of this movie the studio believes they have a really strong film on their hands and a slow grow roll out through the fall will earn them the most money.

Rarely do movies get super high screen averages in limited release and not go on to do well when released wider. A bad movie's audience falls from a full house on opening nights to crickets by the end of its run leaving it with per screen averages literally 1% of what was gotten here. I do think they said it was in the top five or top ten of limited releases ever. I suspect the other movies on that list did well.

Box office mojo has an adjusted list of limited release films that went on to wider distribution.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/theateravg.htm?page=THTRAVGOPN&adjust_yr=2015&p=.htm

It is a a slightly mixed bag but even most of the films with under 100 million grosses got awards consideration and critical exclaim. Red state was never released wide Kevin Smith toured the movie himself in theaters so it's not really a relevant example. Again though it played the minimum time in New York and la for awards consideration and to be considered a box office release.

The Starz reality show The Chair had two new directors make the same script and showed both films in limited release. The screen averages were 1k and 3k.

People get excited because often many smaller art house films only play in New York and LA but the reality is they also have every single horrible movie ever made as well.

This was a problem decades ago when cinema and high volume rentals/sales were only options for the rest of the US. That is no longer the case.

No matter how you slice it 127k screen average is a strong indicator of good word of mouth and likely reasonable success, minimally, upon a wider release.
 
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.

Wow you sound like a cheapskate. Think of the transportation costs! And other expenses! I might be compelled to buy a $2 coffee afterwards!
 
I don't think so... really... wouldn't get as much attention as a man that everybody has heard talk about at least once, and is contemporary, and has videos of him on the Internet.

The Imitation Game is much more about a man, it's about an era, and about homosexuality, not just about a single man...
So you're saying you think this movie will do better than The Imitation Game? Or even better than A Beautiful Mind?

Every film has an angle. This one is about Steve Jobs, but it's not "The Steve Jobs Story". A movie about Nikola Tesla would have to have an angle also. If you are saying that a movie that simply told the uncontroversial life story (or professional life story) of Nikola Tesla would not do as well as this film which decidedly does NOT try to tell the life story of Steve Jobs, then you're probably right. It would be boring as heck, except to a few people who might thrill to scenes of him dining alone, or feeding pigeons.
 
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.

What? o_O Why do people go to concerts when they can listen to Music at home with much better quality? Why do people go to see live sports when they can watch the game from the couch with much more comfort?

Funny guy... :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 123
if we all of us stayed at home on face-book, none of us would get any exercise ... :D
 
Whyyyyyyyy do these ads show up???? Whyyyyyyyy.........
 

Attachments

  • image.png
    image.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 153
Several posters to this site keep referring to hardcore fans and fanboys.

It is regular workaday folks that buy Apple products and love them. They like the products and the benefits they receive.

The fraction of any population that is a so-called fanboy is under 1%. Yet they have a large portion of the mindshare and mocking by some posters here.

That makes me believe they are on the other end of the bell curve themselves. Anti-fanboys.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2939

20130407.gif
 
Some of us want to socialize outside of the house and not be hermits. Of course we understand the appeal of occasionally staying home with friends or going to someone else's movie watching party. But there's an entire world outside of the home where you get to experience and see and hear new people and things, especially if you live in a large metropolitan area. I would frame the question another way: isn't it worth $20 to get out of the house sometimes to see a movie? I've found that if you go to over 21 showings, which most cities have now, people are well-behaved and you can enjoy the show.

No.

What? o_O Why do people go to concerts when they can listen to Music at home with much better quality? Why do people go to see live sports when they can watch the game from the couch with much more comfort?

Funny guy... :D

I can't figure it out I've not gone to a concert since I was a teenager and the only time I've gone to see live sports is dollar beer night.
 
What? o_O Why do people go to concerts when they can listen to Music at home with much better quality? Why do people go to see live sports when they can watch the game from the couch with much more comfort?

Funny guy... :D


those are terrible analogies. live music is not the same as a recording. live theatre is not the same as a movie, live game is not the same as a game on tv. a movie in the theatre is the same as a movie at home.
 
And also happens to be a fictionalization, "an abstract".

But don't take my word for it, take Aaron Sorkin's and Danny Boyle's own words instead: http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/8/9482679/steve-jobs-movie-interview-aaron-sorkin-danny-boyle
I'm not taking your word for it. I already knew it. The hit Broadway musical Hamilton is also a fictionalization.

The hypothetical Tesla movie would almost certainly be one, too. It would take known facts, like Steve Jobs used the occasions of the Steve Jobs product releases and his denial of the paternity of his daughter, and weave in a story arc and also scenes of conversations that came out of the mind of a screenwriter.

I don't think I have ever seen a biography film that didn't take some liberties with the reality of their subjects. Can you name any?
 
I'm not taking your word for it. I already knew it. The hit Broadway musical Hamilton is also a fictionalization.

The hypothetical Tesla movie would almost certainly be one, too. It would take known facts, like Steve Jobs used the occasions of the Steve Jobs product releases and his denial of the paternity of his daughter, and weave in a story arc and also scenes of conversations that came out of the mind of a screenwriter.

I don't think I have ever seen a biography film that didn't take some liberties with the reality of their subjects. Can you name any?

Mickey Mouse? ;)
 
I don't think I have ever seen a biography film that didn't take some liberties with the reality of their subjects. Can you name any?

The problem is that Sorkin doesn't know how to fill in the blanks or end the story. It still comes out as a series of vignettes that are driven by the actors performances, but connected by beats that feel far too much like one of Sorkin's assistants spent a half a day reading Wikipedia, jotting down the bullet points which Sorkin then peppered into his fiction. They stand out like sore thumbs. There are far too many times Joanna Hoffman mentions key members of Apple's staff by first and last name, as if Jobs wouldn't know who she was talking about (no, I'm not talking about Hertzfeld). It's just amateurish, but that's not surprising, coming from Boyle and Sorkin.
 
The problem is that Sorkin doesn't know how to fill in the blanks or end the story. It still comes out as a series of vignettes that are driven by the actors performances, but connected by beats that feel far too much like one of Sorkin's assistants spent a half a day reading Wikipedia, jotting down the bullet points which Sorkin then peppered into his fiction. They stand out like sore thumbs. There are far too many times Joanna Hoffman mentions key members of Apple's staff by first and last name, as if Jobs wouldn't know who she was talking about (no, I'm not talking about Hertzfeld). It's just amateurish, but that's not surprising, coming from Boyle and Sorkin.
I can't comment directly on that, since I haven't seen the film. But it apparently isn't affecting most people's enjoyment of the movie.

There's a scene in Jurassic Park where a teenaged girl sits down at a workstation and sees a pretty impressive three-dimensional GUI. How does she respond (Remember that this is 1993)? She says, "This is Unix! I know this!" It completely ruined the movie for everyone, right?
 
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...

Like anything else in Hollywood, we have a new trend that studios are scrambling to follow. The Social Network and the Steve Jobs movies and even shows like the Big Bang Theory are creating a "geek chic" trend with some of the following getting pitch reels done.

* The early Fairchild years with Bob Noyce and the rest of the "Traitorous Eight" leaving Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory. Imaged like a "nerdy Mad Men" as it was the same era.

* There has been talks of doing a Tesla film going back to when Nicola was alive himself. Issue has always been the Edison legacy in the film business. To this day, Edison's estate hangs a long shadow over every Hollywood boardroom where Tesla is still considered a nemesis. This current trend may break this prejudice.

* A Bill Gates movie about the early Microsoft days. The "Pirates of Silicon Valley" handled a lot of this with the ratings off and on.

* The early video game years with Atari finally exposing their totally crazy stories. Many of the classic Atari games were featured in Adam Sandler's "Pixels" but they specifically said the name "Atari" was not to be used. Supposedly this was done since a full Atari movie is in progress of optioning out.

* There is even stories of "early Internet years" with modems and local Bulletin Boards. It is a nerdy-90210 / Aventureland high school drama featuring local face-to-face meet-ups of freaks and geeks before everyone had broadband in their home.

We'll see who drops the production dimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dk001
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.

Good move.

Too many parents have decided not to teach their children good manners. They should be seen and not heard.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.