Except going by the trailer can often enough be not that much better than judging the book by its cover.
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 Official Full-Length Trailer for 'Steve Jobs' Movie
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, thanks for clearing up the notion of Apple stealing the windows-based GUI since it was common knowledge. Apple simply took the concept and made it better, with help from PARC developers who jumped ship to work for Apple. Too bad XEROX management was so inept that their developers had to leave to feel appreciated, huh?
http://arstechnica.com/features/2005/05/gui/4/
Excerpts about how Apple made important changes: (I highlight the overlapping window innovation segment in blue for you)
The Lisa team eventually settled on an icon-based interface where each icon indicated a document or an application, and developed the first pull-down menu bar, where all menus appeared at the very top line of the screen.
Other innovations from the Lisa team included the idea of checkmarks appearing next to selected menu items, and the concept of keyboard shortcuts for the most frequently used menu commands. The Lisa also changed some PARC conventions, such as eschewing proportionally-sized scroll bars for fixed-height ones, and added new conventions, such as a trash can for dragging documents scheduled for deletion, and the idea of "graying out" menu options if they were not currently available. The three-button mouse, which had been changed to a two-button design in the Star for simplicity, was further simplified to have only one button for the Lisa. As the interface required at least two actions for each icon (selecting and running) the concept of double-clicking was invented to provide this functionality. Double-clicking would later become a standardized way for all GUIs to launch a program, even those with multiple-button mice.
The Lisa user interface invented other GUI concepts that we still use today. While SmallTalk and the Xerox Star had icons that represented files, the Lisa interface was the first to have the idea that icons could represent all files in the filesystem, which could then be browsed through using a hierarchal directory structure where each directory opened in a new window. The idea of "drag-and-drop" was also invented at this time, and the concept of using drag and drop to do file manipulation (for example, selecting a group of files with the mouse and then dragging them to a new folder to copy them) naturally developed from this concept. Less visible but still important to the user interface was the idea of "resource forks," which embedded information about a file separately from the file itself, and the idea of "creator classes" meant that each file could be assigned an application that would launch when you double-clicked on that file.
Final Lisa user interface.
One critical advance from the Lisa team came from an Apple engineer who was not a former PARC employee, but had seen the demonstration of Smalltalk. He thought he had witnessed the Alto's ability to redraw portions of obscured windows when a topmost window was moved: this was called "regions". In fact, the Alto did not have this ability, but merely redrew the entire window when the user selected it. Despite the difficulty of this task, regions were implemented in the Lisa architecture and remain in GUIs to this day. (Try rapidly moving, say, an Explorer window over top of a Word document. If your eyes are very fast, you can still see which parts of the window are redrawn and which are not.)
Work on Lisa started in 1979 but the computer was not released until 1983. Despite its advanced features, the price tag of US$10,000 and the difficulty of writing software for the new machine limited sales. A low-cost, stripped down version of the Lisa was needed, and this task fell to Steve Jobs himself. His Macintosh project achieved the goal of a lower-cost graphical computer by shipping with a small 9-inch monochrome screen (512 by 384 pixels), a mere 128 kilobytes of memory, no multitasking or even the ability to task switch between more than one program, and a single floppy drive. This was introduced to the world in dramatic fashion in 1984, selling for US$2,495. It retained most of the GUI features of the Lisa, and even shared some of its low-level code, but the operating software itself was written from scratch to fit in the small memory footprint.
Last edited:
How many events depicted in "The Social Network" were widely viewed by the public and very well known, especially back when the movie came out? I wouldn't compare the brief public knowledge of Zuckerberg with the long history we've had with Jobs. And Zuckerberg says many events in the movie aren't true and I think that's a bad thing because most people will have gotten all their supposed "knowledge" about Zuckerberg from that movie and that doesn't help anyone one bit. What's the purpose of creating a movie that people think is the actual history but blatantly isn't? I don't care how many times it is described as fiction, most people will think it is true, especially Apple haters who are already irrational and annoying with their mythology. It's almost as bad as bogus scientific studies trying to claim something is bad for us and a million vocal people latch onto it and try to eliminate that innocent thing that's actually very beneficial in the grand scheme of things.
It's a movie. People enjoyed it. It wasn't meant to change the world or do anything else aside from having people enjoy it and those who made it make money. That's entertainment, as they say--it's there to entertain.
Another attempt at a movie that's based on subject material which isn't that interesting. They keep trying though. Gotta admire the perseverance. Let's be honest though.... Steve Jobs life story isn't that compelling and since everyone knows many of the details and the outcome, what's the point really?
What's next? The Jeff Bezos story? Meh.
Whatever.
What's next? The Jeff Bezos story? Meh.
Whatever.
Judging by the Trailer they could not have picked a worse actor. He doesn't fit the part. Noah Wyle was the best fit for this ever.
Was Zuckerberg's particularly compelling somehow? Seems like plenty of movies about lesser things do just fine. And certainly not even close to majority of everyone knows much about Jobs--there are many people who probably barely even know who that is (despite maybe knowing about iPhones or iPads, although there are even some who barely even know about those).
Trailer looks good. Much better looking than the kutcher version. Seems to be more of an "honest" approach to jobs, instead of the "walking on water" approach of others.
Too bad they don't think it's interesting enough to see this side of him:
He was so private, it would have been interesting to see the non-corporate side for a change for a part of the film. But the Apple haters wouldn't have enjoyed seeing Jobs as simply being a flawed person (as everyone is flawed) with incredible vision and drive.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/steve-jobs-revelations-from-a-tech-giant-57460045/
Last edited:
Yeah, because i can still have an opinion about it and posting this opinion is the main reason we are all here, or not?
Theater of the mind... Granted, I was in the Noah Wyle camp, but who thought that Jesse Einsenberg was actually Mark Zuckerberg or that Steve Ballmer was such a halfwit as portrayed in the Pirates of Silicon Valley?
Sure, but commenting on a secondary post without having read the original one is like judging a book by starting in the middle of it.
(Go back to my original post and note where I wrote maybe the trailer is the victim of a bad editing job).
My issue with Fassbender is he's got the intensity for the role, but he's not an actor that can do anything other than a posh English ascent. In pretty much all of the roles where he has a US accent it just drift into Irish and back again, just as in this trailer.
But no reference or connection to that in the second post so no one would really connect the two.Sure, but commenting on a secondary post without having read the original one is like judging a book by starting in the middle of it.
Last edited:
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-34167248
http://variety.com/2015/film/in-con...-this-years-best-actor-oscar-race-1201587050/
This is shaping up to be a good one. People complained he did´t look anything like Jobs and this just goes to show.. When you have a solid actor like Fassbender who knows his craft well along with a brilliant screenwriter like Sorkin, you get results.
http://variety.com/2015/film/in-con...-this-years-best-actor-oscar-race-1201587050/
This is shaping up to be a good one. People complained he did´t look anything like Jobs and this just goes to show.. When you have a solid actor like Fassbender who knows his craft well along with a brilliant screenwriter like Sorkin, you get results.
He still looks nothing like Jobs
I can't move on from that fact. Good acting isn't the same as being accurate in your portrayal. The BBC says you'll hate him throughout the film. I suspect they have made a distasteful character who is great as a character, but isn't at all like Steve Jobs.