Yeah the hype is palpable. This puppy had better veer from reality in the opening scene for it to be even remotely watchable.
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 Studios Picks Up Aaron Sorkin's Steve Jobs Movie, Michael Fassbender to Star
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah the hype is palpable. This puppy had better veer from reality in the opening scene for it to be even remotely watchable.
The film is about Jobs, not about Wozniak. He is likely to have a very minor supporting role in the film.
----------
Just like "The Social Network"... hum..
And in an unrelated, but significant bit of news: Sony was EPICALLY hacked, with the hacker group threatening to expose a ton of secrets from the megopoly.
Repeated dupes of the Playstation Network are nervous, and have every right to be. Once bitten...
Do the phantoms of the Three Stooges run the IT department at Sony? Film at eleven...
Repeated dupes of the Playstation Network are nervous, and have every right to be. Once bitten...
Do the phantoms of the Three Stooges run the IT department at Sony? Film at eleven...
I'm tired of hearing about this movie. It's just too soon for this kind of stuff. Most people like myself already have a vision of him. I'm not ready to replace it with the Hollywood version.
"The Social Network" did better than just fine (and it was about people who haven't even lived half of their lives yet).
----------
As in completely different movies with different people behind them and in them...quite different styles it would seem.
----------
Apparently even you do.
That's like saying Winston Churchill was just another British politician amongst many British politicians. While Steve Jobs didn't necessarily save the world, he did forever change it. Also, he's a very interesting human being in both good and bad ways and his story would make a good biopic if it's done right.
Besides, I think this movie was originally proposed around the same time or even before the other one. That and the other one sucked.
You want actors who can act, Jobs was a very emotional, intense guy. Lookalikes dont tend to be great actors.
While I agree that would be a really good casting choice. Outside of Star Wars, Hollywood execs generally don't like casting people who aren't already big established stars. Joshua Gomez might be known to you and me as Morgan, but in general since he's not a huge name they don't know him from John Gomez of Scottsdale Arizona. They want Rogan because he's a recognizable name and has a decent movie track record. There's a whole stupid formula to "casting" a movie with name actors. It's archaic and stupid but it's true.
Apparently, many people disagree.
They have this thing called "makeup" in Hollywood. It works really well...
Jobs' "douchiness" is a great deal of what makes him interesting. Flawed heroes make for great drama, although you may prefer movies featuring The Mighty Thor.
I agree that there is evidence that common sense is toppling, and this phenomenon is related to this movie.
Is this why Sony dropped the movie in the first place? Could there be any connection??
Sony Pictures Entertainment hacked
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/24/sony-pictures-hacked/70063874/
Sony Pictures Entertainment hacked
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/11/24/sony-pictures-hacked/70063874/
Actually commenting only shows a narcissistic (and sometimes knee jerk) response. The poster could click and respond to every post on MR cause he enjoys doing it.
Nothing to do with if someone cares on the matter... if the subject matter were "I think Seth Rogan sucks but who cares" then they've actually put an opinion on the matter, indicating that they care.
Good characterization. This particular subject seems to bring this out more than most others.
I happen to be really interested in seeing and hearing about this movie, and I think that there have been some interesting speculative comments in this thread that I've enjoyed greatly. Unfortunately, in order to get to these, I have to read through the 75% that are tedious, narcissistic, shallow, repetitive, and yet vituperative, dreck. Honestly, this is the Internet and it is expected that a high degree of what people write is going to be thoughtless; but the constant repetition of "I don't care but I think this SUX and so does everyone in it" is wearing.
It's not stupid, and certainly not archaic. Many people do make decisions about what movies they go to based on recognition of the actors in it. It's called "box office draw". It is real. Name actors can pay for themselves in terms of increased attendance.
Movie-making is a business, after all; just like Apple, and the company that employs you.
No. The decision to drop the Steve Jobs movie was announced last week. The hack happened yesterday.
Wait, someone said Aaron Sorkin's writing sucks? What's going on here?
He wrote A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War, The Social Network, The West Wing, and Moneyball. All have been very well received.
He wrote A Few Good Men, Charlie Wilson's War, The Social Network, The West Wing, and Moneyball. All have been very well received.
These studio things, especially switches of this size, generally don't happen in a flash and are usually in talks for a while--meaning that this was already in play before any of this hacking was happening or at least was known about.
----------
To be fair, there are quite a few Bale movies where he is as you are describing Fassbender. So while there might certainly be differences in their styles and approaches, as far as how good they are, there doesn't seem to be a "gulf" between them or anything close to it.
This is a potential Oscar for Fassbender.
----------
The last movie was funded by a start-up distributor and developed by a group of filmmakers that had little creative experience.
----------
The last movie was funded by a start-up distributor and developed by a group of filmmakers that had little creative experience.
Why? There are boring books for that. Movies are entertainment.
----------
A Few Good Men being the only halfway decent thing out of all of that.
It's not stupid, and certainly not archaic. Many people do make decisions about what movies they go to based on recognition of the actors in it. It's called "box office draw". It is real. Name actors can pay for themselves in terms of increased attendance.
Movie-making is a business, after all; just like Apple, and the company that employs you.
The company that employs me is 20th Century Fox ; yes THAT one (and I previously worked for Sony Pictures for 3 years full time and 2 years as a temp)... so I actually know a tiny bit about the film industry.
Box office draw on the name of an actor is becoming a thing of the past. IE Will Smith's recent flops.
Seth Rogan is a name because he's a good writer and he's good at playing Seth Rogan roles; Stoner dopey likeable guy. I love Seth Rogan movies, but I think Seth Rogan as Woz is a beyond terrible choice, he's not that strong of an actor to play someone besides himself. I'd sooner accept Zach Galifianakis (who shed his dopey fat idiot typecast in Bird Man) than Seth.
Last edited:
It's not intended to be an Apple fan film.
----------
Exactly. He's the best there is.
If Fassbender channels Steve enough maybe he can give Apple a clue on what a great product line up actually is.
And you're free to have that opinion. But the public seems to love his work.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/few_good_men/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/charlie_wilsons_war/?search=Charlie wilson
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-social-network/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/american_president/?search=The American president
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moneyball/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the-newsroom/s03/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200276/