Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
While I think this movie could be interesting, I still wish Noah Wyle was playing Jobs. Really, I just want Pirates of Silicon Valley 2.0.
 
This looks very promising to me, I'll definitely watch it. I can't really understand how people can seriously claim Kutcher was more believable than Fassbender. Kutcher merely acted, he was just Kutcher with a beard. Fassbender is a great actor on the other hand. It's about that and not just about how much the actors look like the original. It seems so irrelevant to me.
 
Well sorry that my standards are higher than yours in regards to how I spend my money in the theater.
That's no problem, everyone has their own hangups about all kinds of things. I was just saying that as a concept and as a general thing it's not something that's seen as a negative or anything like that when it comes to theater/movies/TV/etc.
 
The level of critical commentary contained in this thread is truly breathtaking. Such astute observations, "Fassbender looks nothing like him!" Absolutely nausea-inducing.
 
not sure I get the first comment, but the second I can agree with.

Actually my comedy memory screwed up, I should have said that he is the son of
the woman on the $ 1 bill.

It has been said that she (Barbara Bush) resembles that picture.
 
No. I'm saying that Kutcher would have sold more tickets with the younger generation. The cast is wrong and the era they are focusing on is wrong. It should celebrate the golden years of his life.

This is not just about Steve Job's life, or just about his great successes. This is about Steve Job's experience of the Hero's Journey. He feels the call to make a usable computer. After initial success he experiences a devastating personal defeat. His time 'in the wilderness' is where he learns the lessons he needs for his triumphal return.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
While the depth of the movie is important too the lead character NEEDS to highly resemble Jobs or most people won't be able to relate to him or easily identify him. I've seen a few actors doing a story of a high profile person's life and they either didn't sound like that person or look like that person and it really brought down the value of the movie.

Some people lack they ability to look beyond the physical appearance of the actor to see the character being portrayed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
Some people lack they ability to look beyond the physical appearance of the actor to see the character being portrayed.

agreed.
The last thing I would see is a movie about Bill Gates in which the main character is portrayed by himself. He is identical to himself, but I am pretty sure that his acting quality would destroy the movie.
 
I posted this observation in a older thread, but think it bears repeating. Movies are about telling stories and have particular objectives in mind. Sometimes getting all the details exact actually interferes with the story that the movie is trying to tell.

Silvia Nassar's book "A Beautiful Mind" was a fantastic read. John Nash's delusions in real life had no resemblance whatsoever to the way that it was portrayed in the movie. However, the movie did a fantastic job of portraying the experience of not being able to tell reality from your delusions, which is what Nash experienced.

By taking artistic license the producer and director were able to make a movie that while wrong in many aspects, was very true to the spirit of the story. And Nash was involved with the film and we can assume that he was OK with the inaccuracies.

I think that Woz is saying that the film gives you the right "impression" (see the painting reference there?) And I think I will be able to forget about how Fasbender looks because his performance will be an accurate impression of Jobs without needing to be an impersonation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
Tim Cook isn't a huge fan of this movie according to comments he made to Colbert.. He felt the characterization was unfair.

Oh, and Fassbender as Jobs is a fail

I'm sure others have said this, but he was talking about "Steve Jobs, The Man in the Machine" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4425064/) calling it "opportunistic" because it was released DURING THE BUZZ of the "actual" film, which is this one... and portrayed Steve in a really, really, really negative way while glossing over how some of his greatest weaknesses would be wielded as his greatest strengths.

Also, this (the Aaron Sorkin film) trailer GAVE ME CHILLS.
 
I agree. Whilst the Ashton Kutcher movie was further away from the facts, this movie hasn't got the cast to make it a global success. Why couldn't they make the movie more about the latter years? Jobs became a superstar because of the iPod, iPhone and iPad. I would have liked to have seen the movie about how he developed and battled the critics with these products. Kids these days have no idea about the old iMacs. This is an older generation movie.

I'd argue that the iMac was his most significant product, because the iMac was both Jobs' baby, and his triumphant return to the company - and could have turned out the worst, too, because if it wasn't successful, Apple would have gone bankrupt.

The 128K was probably the most groundbreaking. No one else at the time was making a computer for consumers, and not one that used pictures to convey information in a virtual workspace environment. Literally every computer-related product that followed copied/stole it's paradigms (drag&drop, GUI, ETC)

The iPod was probably the last time Apple acted like a startup. With enough cash, they licensed a core technology (portalplayer) to build something really out of the box.

After that point in time, I feel like it was less about Steve the man in day-to-day life at Apple, and more the Steve the Legend, because Apple grew SO fast in a relatively short period of time.

And again, IMHO.

(also, I'd be more interested in seeing Steve the Man. If you want to see Steve the Legend, you can look at WWDC keynotes and other events from years past, which is actually kinda fun and really interesting!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: imanidiot
Not another one of these earnest hagiographies!

Can't we get a decent Dead Steve zombie movie?

"Must...eat...recording industry profits...rrrrawwwr....."
 
It's like casting gw bush for the role of Thomas Jefferson.. It just doesn't work
Yeah you know in any good biopic being a celebrity impersonator is not very important?

Seems like Steve jobs has some people who dream about him constantly. The average person has only a vague and general idea of what Jobs actually looks or sounds like. All that matters is it written, directed and acted at a high level.

That a handful of people would prefer a crappy movie with Ashton Kutcher simply because he looks more like Jobs is to not understand movies at all.
 
"Steve Wozniak himself noting its accuracy to real life events."

Wozniak also said that the conversations with him that were depicted in the movie never took place. Hmmmm. Not sure what to think when Woz comments about Apple and Jobs. I'm starting to think that Cook knows Jobs better than Woz, at least what Jobs became in his final years.
But that's not when the movie takes place. In fact did cook even know jobs during their earlier parts depicted in the movie?
 
Never understood this logic in watching a biopic. Have you seen Gandhi? Looks nothing like Gandhi. How about Selma? Looks nothing like MLK. To me, it's about the PERFORMANCE and nothing else.

You can have a look alike do a biopic, but it won't matter if his/her performance isn't there at all.

Performance > Looks any day of the week.

You kidding me lol Ben Kingsley looked exactly like Gandhi. He could of been his twin or brother at least in looks.

Yes performance is another key component but you need the actor to look like the character they are portraying in the first place to initially draw you in. Judging by the trailer Michael Fassbender's portrayal of Steve Jobs is not very good either. I may be proven wrong once I see the film. But so far from the trailer all I think in my mind is Michael Fassbender is doing keynotes for Apple products lol. Its not just him, I think everyone else was miscast too.

Ashton Kutchers performance was excellent. Also the whole feel of the movie was right and the soundtrack was also very good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SirCheese
Amanda Seyfried as Linda Lovelace, in Lovelace
Angelina Jolie as Mariance Pearl, in A Mighty Heart
Channing Tatum as Mark Shultz, in Foxcatcher
Daniel Radcliffe as Allen Ginsberg, in Kill Your Darlings
James Franco as Aron Ralston, in 127 Hours
Leonardo DiCaprio as Frank Abagnale Jr, in Catch Me If You Can
Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort, in The Wolf of Wall Street
Reese Witherspoon as June Carter Cash, in Walk The Line

What links all those castings in biopics?
..The actor looks nothing like the real-life person they are playing.

But acting is not impersonating. If it was, movies would be very different indeed. And a lot less enjoyable.

I guess there is a subjective difference when the real-life character is so much more well known, as is the case here, with Steve Jobs. And I would predict that that will create a barrier of some kind with all of us when watching this film, even those of us defending the casting of a quality actor like Fassbender.

But take a look at those movies listed above again.. and if you've seen a few of them, how do you feel about them?
Did you enjoy them? Did you not enjoy them?
And was your enjoyment based upon how much the character looked like their real-life counterpart... or was it based upon the quality of the acting, the script, the plot, the cinematography, the style, the story, the tension, the supporting cast, the locations, the visual effects, etc etc etc.

Finally, it is foolish to judge a movie that you have not yet seen.
Agreed. Most people and even most apple fans don't have an ingrained image of jobs talking and moving. It is a minuscule percentage of people who do who this movie is not even targeting.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.