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.
Universal Releases New Trailer for Upcoming 'Steve Jobs' Movie
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And yet in the art of motion pictures and theater that kind of thing has been working just fine for ages (down to one gender playing another, etc.).
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.
A great actor miscast because he doesn't physically resemble his character enough to please you? Please. That's just embarrassing.
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.
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.
I thought it was going to be called: Steve Jobs 2: Electric Boogaloo
What changed?
They couldn't get Christian Bale.
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.
Some people lack they ability to look beyond the physical appearance of the actor to see the character being portrayed.
Actually your standards look more superficial.
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.
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.
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'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!)
Whatever my preferences are in terms of how I spend my money are none of your concern.
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.
But that's not when the movie takes place. In fact did cook even know jobs during their earlier parts depicted in the movie?
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.
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.