Whatever they might feel about it, if they were to do what you are talking about, somehow we'd likely be discussing some sort of a "censorship-gate" type of thing all of a sudden.
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: The Man in the Machine' Documentary Debuts Today in Theaters and on VOD
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't really do these boards any longer but I did see this comment and I wanted to add my agreement with your analysis. I heard this filmmaker interviewed on NPR yesterday. I found myself talking back to the car radio when he claimed we all "wept" when Steve died, but that we also gave him some sort of "free pass" on being a jerk because the technology he was involved with creating is so seductive. For many of us at least, both statements ring false. Many people throughout history have exhibited contradictory traits in abundance. Important people may or may not have always been nice people, but that does not alter how we feel about their personal faults, or alter the importance of their contributions. They are in fact two different issues. Bottom line, this filmmaker fundamentally overstates his case both for and against who Steve was as a person and his contributions in the service of selling interest in his movie. The pitch didn't work for me. Having heard him describe his own ideas about Steve I am now less interested in seeing the film he made than I might have been otherwise.
It was $4.99 this morning, when I went to go watch it this evening , it was $6.99. I'll wait for the Netflix release in 3 weeks
Can someone please confirm the U.S. rental price is $4.99 as stated in the article? I'm currently out of the country and it is showing up as $6.99 for me. If it is $5 in the U.S., I'd rather rent it when I get home but if it is the same $7 price, I'll rent it now.
Seems like a few posts already mentioned that it's not that price eight now and is $6.99.
I watched this movie last night ($6.99 on my soon-to-be-outdated Apple TV). I'm not one who idolized Steve Jobs or subscribes to the "Steve never would have let this happen" mentality when something at Apple goes awry these days. However, I've been a close follower of Apple since its founding, and I've read a lot about Steve Jobs, including recent authorized and unauthorized biographies.
Overall, I'd say that Alex Gibney's documentary is considerably unbalanced to the negative side. He begins by briefly illustrating the world-wide outpouring of sadness that followed Steve Jobs's passing and then proceeds to make a case for why it was undeserved by chronicling specific episodes of bad behavior by Jobs over the years. Most, if not all, of these will be known to many, but I'll present some of them as spoilers just in case:
I don't question the accuracy of these accounts, some of which are reinforced by interviews with Chrisann Brennan and others who lived and worked with Steve Jobs. However, the movie hardly mentions other people in his life, particularly Laurene Powell and their children, who by all accounts I've read had positive relationships with Jobs. It's also my impression that Jobs mellowed in his final years as he contemplated his impending death, but that hardly comes across.
Gibney even has a response to those who accept Steve Jobs's failings as a person and counter with "But look at all the great technology he brought us!" Video clips of a boy praising Jobs's accomplishments ("He made the MacBook Pro, he made the iPod!") seem derisive rather than laudatory, and the movie ends by questioning the value of the iPhone by highlighting its isolating influence. Again, that's a reasonable point, but it's not the whole story. As with many things if life, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.
Overall, I'd say that Alex Gibney's documentary is considerably unbalanced to the negative side. He begins by briefly illustrating the world-wide outpouring of sadness that followed Steve Jobs's passing and then proceeds to make a case for why it was undeserved by chronicling specific episodes of bad behavior by Jobs over the years. Most, if not all, of these will be known to many, but I'll present some of them as spoilers just in case:
- Shortchanging Woz on a project they did at Atari
- Not giving Apple stock to Dan Kottke
- Refusal to pay child support for his daughter, Lisa
- Backdated stock options at Apple
- Pursuing Gizmodo after the iPhone 4 leak
- Lack of support for philanthropy at Apple
- Apple's arrangements in Ireland to avoid U.S. tax payments
- Horrendous working conditions at Foxconn
- Leasing a new car periodically to avoid installing license plates
- Parking in a handicapped-only spot at Apple
- Mistreatment of co-workers at Apple and NeXT
I don't question the accuracy of these accounts, some of which are reinforced by interviews with Chrisann Brennan and others who lived and worked with Steve Jobs. However, the movie hardly mentions other people in his life, particularly Laurene Powell and their children, who by all accounts I've read had positive relationships with Jobs. It's also my impression that Jobs mellowed in his final years as he contemplated his impending death, but that hardly comes across.
Gibney even has a response to those who accept Steve Jobs's failings as a person and counter with "But look at all the great technology he brought us!" Video clips of a boy praising Jobs's accomplishments ("He made the MacBook Pro, he made the iPod!") seem derisive rather than laudatory, and the movie ends by questioning the value of the iPhone by highlighting its isolating influence. Again, that's a reasonable point, but it's not the whole story. As with many things if life, the truth lies somewhere between the extremes.
I just watched it as well. I can see why people would leave with a negative impression... The first half of the film is largely positive, while the second half mostly covers the negative aspects of his life. Towards the last half hour it did feel like they were piling on him, but hey: They weren't lying.
I learned a few things, (Spoilers 1, 9 & 10 you listed were new to me.) #1 took me aback, and of all the negative aspects displayed, this one stood out. That he would do that to his best friend... And I could write it off as being young and dumb if the rest of his life didn't reflect the same tendencies. I thought it spoke volumes about his true personality. The way he was involved in the Gizmodo case showed this type of behavior didn't fade with time, even in the waining years of his life.
I wouldn't expect this documentary to change people's minds about the man. However I feel it's a nice counter-balance to the near-universal praise he has typically received. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, most of the world's defining people have both good and bad sides. While history will judge most of them favorably, it's up to the individual to decide if that praise is merited.
My opinion of him also reflects a mix of the positive and negative. As a businessman, he gave me and so many others the power of personal computers. And he did it with style. For that, I will always be appreciative. As a human being, beginning with his adoption, he carried a chip on his shoulder for life. He compensated by stepping on family, friends, co-workers and even complete strangers, in order to become one of the wealthiest men in the grave. He channeled his inner demons to motivate those around him to do great things, through sadistic psychological manipulation. His life was always about one person and one person alone.
The world is both better off without him, and better off because of him.
The facts presented were correct. I learned new things. I made my own conclusions. I heard Alex Gibney's et al. conclusions which became apparent by his narration, the score, editing, choices of interviewees etc. This film is a reflection of them. It is like when you listen to someone talking about another person with despise and put them in a bad light. You recognise that it says more about that person than the subject. Side note: The film is produced by CNN Films. This cynical way of presenting reality is seen at CNN like it is here.
Half-way in the "Here's to the Crazy Ones" ad appears. In Steve's own voice he narrates "you can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them – about the only thing you can't do is ignore them." The film kept on running, but it didn't remain the same, the rants became noise. Like the humming of a distant city.
Half-way in the "Here's to the Crazy Ones" ad appears. In Steve's own voice he narrates "you can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them – about the only thing you can't do is ignore them." The film kept on running, but it didn't remain the same, the rants became noise. Like the humming of a distant city.
Last edited:
Same here. It looks like yet another hack job made by people who can only criticize and not create. The envy the producers had in this documentary shows down to the timing of the scene cuts. That fact that most of the trailer was critical instead of insightful tells me it is not worth my time.
I'd love to see them try to make this when Steve was alive. While Steve was critical, he was an incredible charismatic leader whom brought the best and worst out of people. For me, he had no patience for the status quo nor those with idealized political causes of any leaning.
Remember him tearing into one guy who had a regular lunch spot a few blocks away from The Loop and knowing the diner staff by name. Steve dug into this guy saying his regular lunch schedule and fraternizing with "civilians" was hurting his performance.
The guy could get under your skin and make you question your very essence in a very constructive manner. He often was proud at upsetting and offending people. Often he would say he stood for something if he upset them or raised them.
Love him or hate it, you had to respect the dude. Still miss him and still wonder how Tim kept his job after Steve left us.
Last edited:
Steve had many flaws as a human being and those should not be ignored if one were to idolize him, but there is no doubt he helped move the world of technology forward. In my opinion Eddy should not turn a blind eye to the bad side of his former boss.
Seems like these people created this documentary (among various others as I understand). So they certainly can create and quite a bit more than many others out there.
Which shows they have a template that they just place in the source material and go from there. The BBC is nutritious for this technique churning out documentaries with the political objective set from the beginning.
The Steve Jobs haters will be all over this as they scream of the miserable mortgage-paying life they submitted to just like their parents.
It could similarly be said that Apple has a template for strategy, marketing, and even products.
I saw it. Nothing really new here. If you have read the Apple/Jobs books over the years and seen the movie depictions of Apple/Jobs, you didn't learn anything. Wasn't that compelling of a work. I fast forwarded through it during certain parts.
Compared to what has been released so far? Yeah it's the only one worth watching... so far. That said it is a somewhat biased film. It is NOT a celebration of this man's life, but a tear down of the distortion field that surrounded his persona. It focuses a lot on Steve's shortcomings, his many flaws as a person. It will be painful for Apple/Steve Jobs fans to watch, but it should be watched to have a clearer picture of the other side of the man. It begins with the film maker's question of why the outpouring of grief around the world for this man when he passed away. To answer that question the film delves into his personal life, his psyche of "me", his ruthless business side, contradictions of things said and done, and his relationships (personal and professional). I can't wait for the Sorkin film to see what he does with Isaacson's book.
[QUOTE="
The world is both better off without him, and better off because of him.
[/QUOTE]
I find this an odd statement. Although there are many of those that resented Jobs, there are as many that understood what he was striving for. I believe there would have been still, many innovated products that would have come forth, but hopefully, he left some type of road map for a few years to come after his demise. I'm sure there were many meetings with TC that he envisioned many things that could come, but the tech was yet to be.
I'm sure his family feels differently as I'm sure they don't feel better without him. He left a very impressive footprint that will be difficult to duplicate.
The world is both better off without him, and better off because of him.
[/QUOTE]I find this an odd statement. Although there are many of those that resented Jobs, there are as many that understood what he was striving for. I believe there would have been still, many innovated products that would have come forth, but hopefully, he left some type of road map for a few years to come after his demise. I'm sure there were many meetings with TC that he envisioned many things that could come, but the tech was yet to be.
I'm sure his family feels differently as I'm sure they don't feel better without him. He left a very impressive footprint that will be difficult to duplicate.
Apple's templates are constructive and is social. These guys templates are destructive and anti-social.
IMO this movie looks like a hack job worthy of a 60 Minutes Sunday night piece. All that's missing is the film crew and reporter with ad hominem constant questioning worthy of Dan Rather or Jorge Ramos.
As I said, I don't question the accuracy of the negatives - it's the way that Gibney seems to have cherry-picked (or should I say rotten Apple-picked) some of them that concerns me. For example, Steve's stiffing of Woz on the payment from Atari was horrible behavior, but it wasn't representative of their entire relationship.
Still, there's no doubt that Steve treated some people, including close friends and family, horribly at times. The film begs the question: At what point does a person's bad behavior outweigh and even negate their positive contributions? The segment with Bob Belleville highlights this conundrum. He seemed to say that Steve ruined his personal life but brought out the best in him. There were times when I couldn't tell if he was laughing or crying.
It seems like Gibney's approach to this film was to first answer to himself the question "what do I think of Steve Jobs and how do I feel about Apple?", and then set out to find material that fit the narrative he previously decided on.
OK, this is a long rant, and I apologize for it. Go see the documentary for yourself and reach your own conclusions.
Music score, interviewees, aspects of his life, all meticulously chosen to paint a very particular picture of SJ, and not a flattering one at all. Not that the man wasn't an ******, of course, as there is a plethora of evidence to that assertion. Stealing from Woz in the Breakout deal, denying paternity, throwing Fred Anderson and Nancy Heinen under the bus in the backdating scandal are some of the most poignant examples, to be sure.
But then you see Bob Belleville's testimony, a heartwrenching interview with so much grief and sorrow. His reading of the text he published when Steve died almost drove me to tears, so much sadness, hurt, love, hate, despair was packed in the feelings he was projecting as he read those lines. My first reaction was to think something along the lines of "how could Steve have willingly or simply casually have caused so much pain to this man (and, by induction, to so many others)? But the deeper understanding that has to come from this is the fact that Mr. Belleville never had a gun to his head preventing him from leaving Apple and Steve at any moment he chose. He always had a choice, and he made the choice over and over to stay aboard. Yes, Steve, it seems, was charming, and could supposedly charm people into doing his bidding with an almost Jedi "these are not the droids you are looking for" ability. And yet, in the end, there is always the choice to put on a scale everything that is happening—on one hand, the unique opportunity to work on a revolutionary computer, on the other, the damage it is causing to one's personal life—and choose a different path. Personally, I have been submitted to a similar treatment, by a mercurial boss—albeit one admittedly a couple of orders of magnitude less intense than Steve Jobs—and I somewhat know how it feels. I learned a lot, I got tons of experience, I got hurt a lot. I am a better professional today because of such experiences, but in the end I decided to leave, when balancing everything out I found it wasn't worth it. And that extremely important facet of what happened to Bob Belleville is never even touched in the documentary. Neither are told the stories of Bob Mansfield, Scott Forstall, Jon Rubinstein, Eddy Cue,Tim Cook, Jony Ive and several other Apple executives who worked under Jobs for several years and were able not only to "endure" it, but to thrive.
And then there the blatant double standards: working conditions in China, that every single company that designs in their own country and outsource manufacturing incurs; tax dodging schemes that every single multinational company avidly seeks and implements; and the most absurd and pernicious of all: the sense of alienation supposedly provoked in the users of modern electronic equipment. All of these traits are by no means exclusive to Apple, but they are treated as if Apple is not their sole perpetrator, but also their inventor. That approach is simply not fit for a documentary aiming at the truth.
On that last point, the thesis that Apple's products foster alienation, it's particularly pernicious because it aims to vilify what actually is one of the best characteristics of Apple products: they are exceedingly good at their jobs. We want to use these products—and supposedly alienate ourselves while doing it—because they make our lives so much easier. I can do my job better; I can be in better contact professionally and personally with people around me; I can be more productive; I can be more well informed; I can be more creative. The list goes on and on. Alienated? I never had the opportunity to be in so much contact with so many people before I started carrying a smartphone with me all the time. I constantly message friends and family that live hundreds and sometimes thousands of kilometers away at a negligible cost, thanks to modern communication technology. Is Apple better at all of these things than the competition? Although I have an opinion on the matter, of course the subject is absolutely debatable. And if, say, Android's users aren't so much into their own devices as Apple users, that is not an advertisement point for Android. "Our products are better because they are crappier and you won't be drawn to them so much" is not a viable campaign motto.
If we use the "bicycle for the mind" analogy, it's as if Apple invented the best possible bicycle (to date), and the critics are ranting about how nobody walks anymore. Yes, everybody is getting everywhere faster and more efficiently, but very few people are going out for strolls anymore! Not a valid complaint at all, IMHO.
But then you see Bob Belleville's testimony, a heartwrenching interview with so much grief and sorrow. His reading of the text he published when Steve died almost drove me to tears, so much sadness, hurt, love, hate, despair was packed in the feelings he was projecting as he read those lines. My first reaction was to think something along the lines of "how could Steve have willingly or simply casually have caused so much pain to this man (and, by induction, to so many others)? But the deeper understanding that has to come from this is the fact that Mr. Belleville never had a gun to his head preventing him from leaving Apple and Steve at any moment he chose. He always had a choice, and he made the choice over and over to stay aboard. Yes, Steve, it seems, was charming, and could supposedly charm people into doing his bidding with an almost Jedi "these are not the droids you are looking for" ability. And yet, in the end, there is always the choice to put on a scale everything that is happening—on one hand, the unique opportunity to work on a revolutionary computer, on the other, the damage it is causing to one's personal life—and choose a different path. Personally, I have been submitted to a similar treatment, by a mercurial boss—albeit one admittedly a couple of orders of magnitude less intense than Steve Jobs—and I somewhat know how it feels. I learned a lot, I got tons of experience, I got hurt a lot. I am a better professional today because of such experiences, but in the end I decided to leave, when balancing everything out I found it wasn't worth it. And that extremely important facet of what happened to Bob Belleville is never even touched in the documentary. Neither are told the stories of Bob Mansfield, Scott Forstall, Jon Rubinstein, Eddy Cue,Tim Cook, Jony Ive and several other Apple executives who worked under Jobs for several years and were able not only to "endure" it, but to thrive.
And then there the blatant double standards: working conditions in China, that every single company that designs in their own country and outsource manufacturing incurs; tax dodging schemes that every single multinational company avidly seeks and implements; and the most absurd and pernicious of all: the sense of alienation supposedly provoked in the users of modern electronic equipment. All of these traits are by no means exclusive to Apple, but they are treated as if Apple is not their sole perpetrator, but also their inventor. That approach is simply not fit for a documentary aiming at the truth.
On that last point, the thesis that Apple's products foster alienation, it's particularly pernicious because it aims to vilify what actually is one of the best characteristics of Apple products: they are exceedingly good at their jobs. We want to use these products—and supposedly alienate ourselves while doing it—because they make our lives so much easier. I can do my job better; I can be in better contact professionally and personally with people around me; I can be more productive; I can be more well informed; I can be more creative. The list goes on and on. Alienated? I never had the opportunity to be in so much contact with so many people before I started carrying a smartphone with me all the time. I constantly message friends and family that live hundreds and sometimes thousands of kilometers away at a negligible cost, thanks to modern communication technology. Is Apple better at all of these things than the competition? Although I have an opinion on the matter, of course the subject is absolutely debatable. And if, say, Android's users aren't so much into their own devices as Apple users, that is not an advertisement point for Android. "Our products are better because they are crappier and you won't be drawn to them so much" is not a viable campaign motto.
If we use the "bicycle for the mind" analogy, it's as if Apple invented the best possible bicycle (to date), and the critics are ranting about how nobody walks anymore. Yes, everybody is getting everywhere faster and more efficiently, but very few people are going out for strolls anymore! Not a valid complaint at all, IMHO.
OK, this is a long rant, and I apologize for it. Go see the documentary for yourself and reach your own conclusions.
Last edited:
One can respect the results of the man's work but not the man himself. Even if you claim "your life is your work" they are two very distinguishable things. It's possible to love AND hate someone.
True. I think perhaps his goal in making this film was to keep a safe distance from the Reality Distortion Field. Unfortunately a side effect of this was ignoring the folks who perhaps might know him best.
The Belleville interview was one thing I thought of differently between the trailer and the full movie. From the trailer he sounded like he was blaming Steve a bit for his life's troubles back then. After watching the full interview, I felt like he blames himself more. His tears were a mix of sadness and joy, you could tell what he accomplished at Apple was something he was immensely proud of, but at great cost.
Watched it. Really liked it.
Besides giving a better sense of the visionary, driven businessman (and, lets be honest... the jerk) behind the legend, it asks and helps answer two interesting, broader questions about him and his legacy: 1) why did the masses cried his death so dramatically, and 2) do the products he help launch really make the world a better place.
It presents (what IMO is) a more balanced perspective of him. And it also gives some new insights, for example, a more accurate portrayal of Chrisann Brennan (Lisa's mother) as a normal person, instead of the crazy lady previous rhetoric claimed her to be.
The complex visionary/sociopath he was is very well documented. But perhaps not for everyone here: I can also see how it can hurt the sensibilities of the huge fan base that prefer to see him in an unidimensional-flawless light.
Cheers!
Besides giving a better sense of the visionary, driven businessman (and, lets be honest... the jerk) behind the legend, it asks and helps answer two interesting, broader questions about him and his legacy: 1) why did the masses cried his death so dramatically, and 2) do the products he help launch really make the world a better place.
It presents (what IMO is) a more balanced perspective of him. And it also gives some new insights, for example, a more accurate portrayal of Chrisann Brennan (Lisa's mother) as a normal person, instead of the crazy lady previous rhetoric claimed her to be.
The complex visionary/sociopath he was is very well documented. But perhaps not for everyone here: I can also see how it can hurt the sensibilities of the huge fan base that prefer to see him in an unidimensional-flawless light.
Cheers!
Last edited:
