‘Steve Jobs’ Bombs: What Went Wrong With the Apple Drama

Michael Fassbender in Steve Jobs
Courtesy of Universal

When Amy Pascal allowed “Steve Jobs” to leave Sony for Universal, the studio chief fretted that she had let a modern day “Citizen Kane” slip through her fingers.

The strikingly literate biopic about the Apple co-founder was brilliant she noted, but after Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale passed on the title role, it lacked a major star, limiting its commercial prospects. In the end, Pascal, whose job was already threatened by a string of flops like  “After Earth” and “White House Down,” couldn’t justify the risk.

Fast-forward nearly a year. Pascal is out of a job, “Steve Jobs” has debuted to rapturous reviews, and the film is a strong Oscar contender. It’s every bit as good as Pascal thought it would be, but the then Sony chief’s wariness also appears to have been entirely justified.

“Steve Jobs” was too brainy, too cold, and too expensive to make it a success. Moreover, Michael Fassbender, the electrifying Irish actor who replaced Bale as Jobs, lacks the drawing power to open the picture.

After racking up the year’s best per-screen average  in its opening weekend and doing strong business in limited expansion, “Steve Jobs” hit a stumbling block in its national release. It debuted to a measly $7.3 million, only a little more than the $6.7 million that “Jobs,” a critically derided film about the iPhone father with Ashton Kutcher, made in its initial weekend. Going into the weekend, some tracking suggested that the picture would do as much as $19 million.

So what went wrong?

Universal believes that the picture can recover. Studio executives note that it is popular in major urban markets like San Francisco and New York, and argue that the film’s A minus CinemaScore means word-of-mouth will be strong. If it can stay in theaters until Golden Globe and Oscar nominations are announced, they believe it can rebound.

“We are going to continue to support the film in the markets where it is showing strength and we’re going to continue to do it aggressively and proactively,” said Nick Carpou, Universal’s domestic distribution chief. “The critics are there for it and the buzz in these markets is strong.”

It’s still hard to see how the film turns a profit. The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that “Steve Jobs” needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even. Given that the film is dialogue-driven and lacks a major star, its foreign prospects seem bleak. It’s almost entirely a domestic play, and so far it’s only made about $10 million.

“There was an over-inflated sense of how well this film could do,” said Jeff Bock, an analyst with Exhibitor Relations. “Its only chance now is to gain awards traction.”

Looking back, it’s difficult to see how “Steve Jobs” could overcome the commercial headwinds it faced. Because of its Silicon Valley subject matter and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin’s involvement, the film has been compared to the Facebook drama “The Social Network.” That film managed to turn critical raves for Sorkin’s cutting dialogue into big box office and a $22.4 million opening. But  the comparisons are faulty. “The Social Network” benefited from arriving just as Facebook was becoming ubiquitous. In 2010, it opened as everyone was discovering the thrill of over-sharing vacation pictures and political screeds. Even as it hit the zeitgeist, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg remained largely unknown to the general public. The story of the social media platform’s litigious origins had the shock of new.

In contrast, Jobs, his genius for design and demanding personality, have all been thoroughly picked over. There’s the Walter Isaacson biography that formed the basis for the Sorkin picture, the Kutcher biopic, and endless profiles and think pieces. Steve Jobs is many things, but he is not an unknown commodity.

Few would fault Fassbender’s performance, but his casting may have been disastrous from a commercial standpoint. An Oscar nominee with a series of compelling turns in the likes of “Shame” and “12 Years a Slave,” Fassbender has yet to establish himself as a bankable actor. In fact, a study by Piedmont Media Research found that audiences’ interest in seeing “Steve Jobs” dipped after they found out Fassbender was headlining the drama. Having a DiCaprio or a Robert Downey Jr. in the title role may have broadened “Steve Jobs'” appeal.

Further compounding issues, “Steve Jobs” debuted at a time of year when the competition is fierce for adult audiences. Steven Spielberg’s “Bridge of Spies,” Nancy Meyer’s “The Intern,” and the Johnny Depp mob movie “Black Mass” are all appealing to older crowds, and there is a wealth of specialty films in limited release like “Room” that are attracting the art-house set.

“It’s the marketplace,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Rentrak. “It’s a high class problem to have, but ‘Steve Jobs’ opened when there are almost too many choices for sophisticated audiences.”

And then there’s the movie itself. Jobs was an emotionally abusive perfectionist. That kind of drive inspires great drama, but is a difficult sell. Universal’s marketing team wisely tried to emphasize the Apple founder’s fraught relationship with his daughter Lisa as a way of humanizing him in trailers and promotional materials. However, that was problematic. Jobs denied paternity. That made him a fascinating and flawed protagonist, but one that’s hard to root for. Moviegoers, after all, tend to like their parents to be devoted and loving, not responsibility-shirking and self-absorbed.

Universal, in the midst of a record-shattering year thanks to hits like “Jurassic World” and “Minions,” can afford to lose money on “Steve Jobs.” For Sony, it’s another story. The studio is fifth in market share and coming off one of the worst summers in its history. Moreover, it’s still reeling from a hack that exposed Pascal and her team’s “Steve Jobs” deliberations to the world, embarrassing the company and straining its relationships with top talent.

Pascal can be faulted for much of what went wrong. She is responsible for crafting a slate that included duds like “Aloha” and “Pixels.” She spent too much money and expended too little imagination trying to reboot “Spider-Man.” And she allowed Seth Rogen to kill off Kim Jong-un in “The Interview,” prompting the North Korean dictator to launch a cyber attack that cost Sony millions.

But in the case of “Steve Jobs,” Pascal was right. It is a brilliant film and a bad bet. A project it hurts not to greenlight and a picture that it pays to put in turnaround. “Steve Jobs” is a frustrating reminder that in today’s Hollywood, quality doesn’t guarantee success.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the year that “The Social Network” was released.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 238

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. lothear@gmail.com says:

    it just wasn’t entertaining. Pirates of Silicon Valley is better even though it was on a TV budget. Noah Wiley does a better Jobs imho.

  2. NYC writer says:

    To my surprise I liked the Steve Jobs movie with Ashton Kutcher much more. I disliked both Sorkin’s screenplay and Fassbender was a total miscast, annoyingly pale, blond and blue eyed, when Jobs was a dark Syrian type. Kutcher made a much better Jobs than Fassbender. If the same screenplay would have been written by a no name, it would have never been produced or called “brilliant” in any of the reviews. I was astounded how such a rich theme as a Jobs biopic could be slaughtered and made into such a poor movie.

  3. Jonas Negmis says:

    I didn’t see it because the trailers made me feel like Jobs was a complete arrogant douche-face that I would not spend $15 and waste 3 hours of my life with.

    –Sent from my iMac

  4. Mark says:

    I agree with most of the comments. The bottom line: nobody cares about Job’s life, beyond what Apple has created.

  5. bub says:

    No amount of good acting can turn a boring topic such as a steve jobs biography in to a good movie. who thought anyone would want to see that?

  6. You don’t get what went wrong with the ‘Steve Jobs’ film. The problem is that it was written like a theater play with three acts — very clear acts — the entire movie taking place in theaters was too on the nose. It’s just not the sort of thing mainstream audiences can appreciate, which is why it was going to fail in the theatrical market. And to be perfectly honest it was not a biopic at all. It was a film about Steve Jobs gradually becoming more of a parent. Misleading marketing and very archaic story format = bomb in a market where mainstream audiences have millions of other things competing for their leisure time.

  7. Jack Monte says:

    First reason that should be mentioned and isn’t is that there are far too many films about Jobs and none have been huge hits and released with little time in between. How does Hollywood math turn into 30 for budget, “at least that much
    for marketing” and it needs 120 to break even? No that adds to 60. Another 60 would be a nice profit.

    • Rick Leslie says:

      Wouldn’t the box office gross have to be shared with the theater, distributor, and maybe others(?) Surely 100% doesn’t fall to the studio.

  8. JT Allison says:

    These movies flop because the general public really doesn’t care about this guy. He may be revered by tech geeks and well-to-do associates in Hollywood & the media but, aside from them, nobody really cares much about Steve Jobs.

  9. Michelle says:

    “It’s still hard to see how the film turns a profit. The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that “Steve Jobs” needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even.” Calculation error?

  10. John Dendy says:

    The problem is most people don’t give a crap about Apple or Jobs.

  11. Leslie says:

    What went wrong was the unfathomable casting choice for Jobs. I was turned off from the first preview. Great actor, but not right for the role. With Christian Bale, movie would have lived up to expectations. Shame they had to replace him.

  12. Jd Moores says:

    “Steve Jobs” is a frustrating reminder that in today’s Hollywood, quality doesn’t guarantee success.

    What quality? I’ve not seen it yet (and don’t know if I ever will), but 2+ hours of so-called snappy dialogue does not a “quality” movie make. The guy is no doubt accomplished, but I’ve still long thought that writer Aaron Sorkin had become a bit overrated after WEST WING and that he’s more or less been getting by on using the same formula over and over of using sarcastic, humor-tinged dialogue to sell historical and/or current event films as somehow being MORE realistic and edgy for what he brings to its script. Maybe the formula works most of the time, but clearly, it’s not working right now – if only because it may be a victim of the overexposed subject matter and seemingly second-tier casting. I’m not one of those Apple/Steve Jobs fanatics, but I’ve known enough to wonder who and how anyone could have first connected Fassbender with the role.

    In any case, Social Network had something else going for it that I’m surprised is not mentioned here. However adult the subject and tone, it had a YOUTHFUL CAST! Basically, it was about a bunch of college kids! Granted, most are geniuses and/or ultra-privileged, but the aesthetics and general energy of a youthful cast go a long way. Plus, it’s sort of a rare combination – adult-themed film with a young cast that isn’t also about something too twisted or overtly sexual.

  13. No one wants to watch a movie about a Con Man, ever one knows Steve Wozniak was the Genius behind the Clown He did everything, Jobs could not even write simple Code… or raise a child..

  14. Why would anyone be so stupid as to think that anyone who was themself a caring individual who respects other peoples’ opinions, tries to be understanding of others and help build people up want to waste their time watching a movie that tries of “humanize” someone who from all reports was despicable? Sounds like they must have pulled in the same crew that tried and failed to “humanize” Hillary.

    Jobs was a self-centered, “I am the smartest man in the room and I will destroy you if you don’t bow down” kinda guy.

    He was a not a great man – anymore than Obama is or has been a great President.

  15. Mark Zinan says:

    Fassbender is an excellent actor. It’s more to do with, why would you want to watch a Steve Jobs biography (sort of biography) and spend 10 or 20 bucks to do it?

  16. Fandemonium99 says:

    Ha – I would have rushed out to see it if Robert Downey Jr. had played the lead. Not so motivated with Fassbender, who I don’t know and I doubt most people know, although I’m sure he’s perfectly fine.

    The star actually DOES have quite a bit to do with whether the audience is motivated enough to leave home, drive to a theater and then plunk down a chunk of money, or whether we wait to see it on Netflix.

    • Honesty says:

      Fassbender is worth the money. Especially combined with the others… The leading cast is what makes the movie better than it is.

  17. Nick Hronis says:

    The great Jobs film has already been done: PBS’s Triumph of the Nerds in 1996 about Jobs, Wozniak, Gates and Ellison racing to change the world is even riveting now. The scene where the Lady running Xerox’s research facility (where they’ve invented the mouse) warns her boss not to let Steve Jobs see the mouse encapsulates all that is Jobs: funny, dangerous, a thief and clever salesman. Director Robert Cringely even gets Jobs on camera admitting to his misdeeds. Orson Welles would be proud.

  18. Neil Ferguson says:

    Who cares about the soap opera behind the scenes of a computer company? If you want to make money in movies, you’ve got to break new ground AND (pay attention because this is the hard part) make a flick people actually want to see, not just films you want to make because the Hollywood in crowd and film snobs say so. From the first moment I saw the trailer for “Steve Jobs,” it looked like 2 hours of torture.

  19. Beatrice says:

    Too soon.

  20. john rodd says:

    The problem was this was done already. I believe there were already 2 films about Jobs , one with Aston Kucher and another one which i cant remember. to put it simply. nobody gives a shit anymore. how many times can you tell the same story.

  21. Elizabeth says:

    Everything about this analysis seems off to me. The film is absolutely not intelligent. Most of the film is histrionic. Almost nothing about the film rings true in terms of offering any insight into the person that Steve Jobs was. Fassbender does an good job with a one dimensional role but it is only the stress that the movie creates with characters’ constant bickering that keeps the audience engaged at all. This is absolutely not a function of the American public not been smart enough to understand the movie. This is a function of a not good movie getting ignored because it’s not a good movie. If this movie is nominated for an Academy award, that will be insanity. The acting done by Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen and Michael Fassbender was good, but I don’t think it was any of their best work largely because the characters were so one-dimensional. They didn’t have much to work with in terms of the script.

  22. CSNY says:

    The comments about Fassbender not being a draw are wrong. He was the only reason to see the turgid “Prometheus” and he has a cult following from the X-men prequels and that Nazi movie by He He Must Never Be Named Anymore. His casting is the only reason I might ever see this Jobs movie, because I detest Sorkin’s precious, screechy, preachy overwriting. The article leaves out the backlash against Apple as a reason for the poor box office. I detest Apple products, and their need to control without respecting the user’s intelligence or need not to feed the Apple coffers when just transferring files. Without Fassbender in this flick, I would never see it, but now I will try it when it comes out on DVD, just to see him work his magic on what is sure to be a terrible script.

  23. paula g. says:

    I didn’t see the other movie about Steve Jobs, but I really liked this one. In fact I was disappointed when it ended, and would have sat another couple of hours to see more. I think all the actors did a great job, and the flash backs were very well done to fill in the gaps of time. :)

  24. Mr. Smith says:

    Or you can just be honest:
    No matter how good the movie ends up and no matter how many people buy Apple products, Steve Jobs is not interesting. You can’t make an interesting movie about a non-interesting person.

  25. Paul Wagner says:

    Why I passed: I was looking for something at least semi-biographical. Everything I read about this film indicated it was really a work of fiction, save for the fact that there’s a guy in the film named Steve who starts a company called Apple.

  26. Mike Rivera says:

    And a lot of people are boycotting Seth Rogan.

  27. Big analysis but in the end the answer is simple. The only people who cares about Steve Jobs are the Apple geeks who buys only apple products like iDiots. And, a movie on the man (a bad movie) was released not so long ago. So that stays in most of the publics head. No one wanted to see another Jobs movie.

  28. Who cares about Steve Jobs? Certainly not me. Now greenlight the Bezos and Wozniak films.

  29. Ron says:

    I haven’t seen the movie and don’t plan to. I have lived in Silicon Valley for many years and bought my first Macintosh in 1985 for $3000. Like everyone else I have my their own memories and interpretations of Steve the professional and heard the stories of his legendary perfectionism . He didn’t have much of an interesting life outside of the office. I just don’t see the value of trying to re-create his personality on screen and don’t see much of an audience for the movie. Suggest spending your time watching him give one of his legendary product introductions or speeches. RIP Steve Jobs.

  30. brown Bomber says:

    Contrary to what this article is stating re Fassbender. He smashing it critically with Macbeth and this film (Jobs) will perform far better Int’l than it will domestically in the states. Int’l people can step away from the myth of Jobs and look at the ‘Man’, Jobs. Fassbender has been part of larger bankable films as an assemble member. I expect Jobs to perform much better in Europe and Rest of The World, where Steve Jobs is still seen a mystery. In the US he is treated like a national treasure, and viewers feel as though they know all about him already. Obviously, Jobs,the movie plays fast and free with some the facts around his life. This will not stop an int’l audience from embracing the movie, knowing Fassbender is in it.

  31. BillUSA says:

    Perhaps all the analysis is as much a waste of time as the movie. People didn’t attend the movie cineplexes because Steve Jobs isn’t that interesting a subject.

  32. J Main says:

    The movie bombed because it is about Steve Jobs.

  33. ron melendy says:

    So the Steve Jobs movie bombed…..and people are wondering why? Guess I’m not the only one out there that is Apple-free. A story about a so-called revolutionary that creates thousands and thousands of low paying jobs in China so he can get rich selling an over-priced product in the U.S. Yeah…..that’s my kind of movie, for sure…….

  34. Dave Craig says:

    One observation on the books and movies about Steve Jobs, is how black people have been written out of the success story behind Apple.

    To elaborate, here are highlights from a previous paper by the Harvard Business Review, titled, The Demographics of Cool.

    “One of the cornerstone products that helped to shape Steve Jobs’s legacy, the iPod … was not instantly successful. It sold only 150,000 units in its first nine months. (Compare that with the 190,000 sales per day that the iPhone has averaged for the past year.)

    Marketing pundits will say that iTunes turned things around, but Apple’s music delivery service underwhelmed at launch, too, only running on Macs and branded with a Beatles-era guitar at a time when the kids were listening to Usher.

    What really, finally made the iPod and iPod owners cool, was hip-hop.

    Apple agreed to underwrite production of new videos from Interscope Records in return for product placement of iPods in those videos. The hottest artist in the world right then was Interscope’s rapper 50 Cent, and the highly anticipated video for his song P.I.M.P. started with him holding his iPod.

    Suddenly, “artists were calling up Interscope asking to get their hands on the devices” – Steve Stout, The Tanning of America.

    Once in the hands of the tastemakers, consumers gravitated en masse to Apple’s new offerings.”


  35. Stanley O says:

    BURNT, TRUTH, STEVE JOBS, & OUR BRAND IS CRISIS’ failures at the Box Office just shows the Hollywood disconnect with the general public. None of these movies had an appeal except for niche audiences. TRUTH & STEVE JOBS are especially big failures since they were touted as “Oscar-bait” by the main stream media.

  36. Victoria Clifford says:

    The failure of this film has nothing to do with the timing of it’s release or it’s choice of actors. Having read the book by Isaacson I expected the movie to follow the book in it’s attention to detail and it’s accuracy in content. The movie did not. It left out details that were important to the content and would drop in a scene out of nowhere (asking Steve to acknowledge the Apple II team) with no background as to why it was meaningful (unless you had read the book). Emphasizing his relationship with his daughter, Lisa was an insult to his 3 other children and wife of 20 years who were never mentioned in the movie.The fault in this “flop” is with whoever adapted the book to the screen. The movie was disjointed and the use of flash backs only added to this feeling of being bounced back and forth without a thread of transition. The book was wonderful and gave an accurate insight into the man and his genius-the movie completely missed the mark. It was the wrong content, not the characters that ruined this film.

  37. rdemsick says:

    The problem isn’t fassbender, the problem is it’s a fictional character assassination film with a unique but repetitive 3 act take on a biopic film that won’t sit well with its main audience…Apple fans. The movie is a quality film that misses on its foundational level, it got jobs wrong. You leave the film thinking Jobs is just an older version of Mark Zuckenberg, an A-hole, the true center of the man never touched in the film at all.

  38. Tracy Britton says:

    I am a writer/director and I LOVED this film! Brilliantly written, cast, acted, scored, directed and the EDITING was INCREDIBLE! It was SO well made and hard to do since there is SO much dialogue in interiors – but the pacing kept it moving like a dirvish.
    I was surprised they did another Steve Jobs story after the Ashton Kutcher film – but as a film – it was impeccably made.
    The theater I saw it in was PACKED – and they actually APPLAUDED after that first fantastic dialogue sequence!
    It takes a lot for a jaded LA audience to bring them to actually – CLAPPING – DURING A MOVIE!

    I do agree it’s a tough time to open a non action/horror/comedy – IT’S THE BEGINNING OF THE BIG OSCAR PUSH – so there is a plethora of quality films being released now.
    But – I am still sure there are some nominations in it’s future!
    (HURT LOCKER wasn’t a box office hit – but it took home some BIG Oscars!)

  39. DC says:

    Part of the moral of this story is; most people don’t care about Steve Jobs. They buy Apple products simply because of its cool advertising, nice look and feel of the software and device, along with a great selection of apps. All of Steve Jobs nonsense about covering up the exit lights and the computer must say hello, is essentially meaningless and not worth paying money to see. At the end of the day, many of the features that consumers like about Apple products, we’re things that Steve Jobs disagreed with. I.e. Third party Apps, phones in a white color, larger screens. He wanted to call the iMac, Mac Man until his ad agency absorbed his abuse and still told him he was wrong.

  40. Dan Ehrlich says:

    The film’s problems stem from two facts: First, the average cinema patron doesn’t care enough about Jobs to pay $10-15 to see the film. Second, the previous Kutcher film acted as a spoiler for this one…I’m amazed that the studio would take on such a project so soon after the other Jobs film. Oh, and Fassbender is actually German.

    • CSNY says:

      Nope, he’s Irish. His father is German, his mother Irish, he grew up in Ireland. That makes him Irish.

    • rdemsick says:

      And those who do care know enough about Steve Jobs to know how inaccurate the movie is, and one sided. Also they tend to be Apple fans who don’t enjoy watching a character assassination film on the founder of a company they love.

  41. Jack C. says:

    The fact that Michael Fassbender doesn’t look at all like Steve Jobs might be an issue, you know. How did he ever get cast?

  42. Bob says:

    I disagree with this analysis .. a movie presenting a personality should not feature an existing personality. E.g. Clint Eastwood playing Jobs would just be the story of Clint Eastwood founding Apple. I’ll never forgive Hollywood casting George Hamilton as Hank Williams. Star power would also not have appealed to this target audience.

    No the problem, if it is a problem, is that folks like me who can’t wait to see this would prefer to wait and see it at home. As with today’s smart and literate television we want to be able pause it, turn on the sub-titles and even flip back to reread a few pages on the way to the end of the tale.

  43. Cedric Behrel says:

    To say it’s entirely a domestic play is blissfully ignorant of international. Steve Jobs is a world icon. If anything the film will make more internationally. To suggest it won’t recoup its $30m budget across all territories and platforms is also very misleading. If Jobs fails it will be because it fails to be a compelling drama –not because of lack of interest or competing “brainy” dramas. And I don’t work for Universal.

  44. Susan Shaw says:

    Loved this movie, but I’m having a hard time understanding why I still like Steve Jobs after seeing it. I guess it lies in my appreciation of Jobs as a visionary. He wasn’t kind, but he was often right. . .and he played the orchestra. Most of us are lucky if we get to play an instrument. Jobs more than believed in himself, he believed he could have an impact on the future. And he did.

    • peterblood71 says:

      You still love Steve Jobs because you can’t believe every movie you see. Writer Aaron Sorkin admittedly took many factual liberties with this (outright lies in many cases) and turned it into Hollywood cinematic fodder without regard for the actual man. The whole Jobs picture and the man are not contained within the running time of a movie. Hollywood’s concerns making a compelling commercial film are at odds with historical record and the people they’re about.

  45. Good. Try making a film about something important you sheep.

    • NonSheep says:

      Sheep buy the same computers that 95% of other sheep buy: PCs.
      Sheep buy the same phones 80% of other sheep buy: Some iPhone ripoff.
      Nothing funnier than a sheep calling others “sheep”.

      • FFS says:

        Jason: Trolling the comments section of movie about someone you hate is not even borderline retarded. It’s the conduct of someone who is mentally ill.
        Get help.

      • Jason says:

        Calling someone a “Sheep” because their smartphone purchases don’t line up with your own is beyond dumb. Is that what the measurement of a person is to you? What piece of technology they use to make calls and watch porn on? I won’t call you a Sheep, but you sound like an F%-#ing idiot

      • peterblood71 says:

        True though that number has slipped quite a lot as PC sales tank and Mac sales continue going upward YOY. Well not to mention rounding share error Windows Phones are dwarfed by iPhones and high end Android phones are also sinking, along with Samsung quarterly profits. Yes I love the sheep theory we well. All in an attempt at a weak put down and not realizing they are sheep to the products they buy too. Hilarious.

  46. HELLOOOO!!!!!!!! says:

    This movie was about Steve Jobs, nobody cares!!!!!!!!! I mean nobody!!!!!!!!!!! Not even APPLE!!!! lol ohh and Seth Rogan sux, Hollywood in case you don’t know yet, anyway these people deserve to lose their “jobs” pun intended, was it pick a CEO movie theme day at the studio? what were the other options “John Schnatter” of Papa Johns? or “Dan Roderick” of Westinghouse!! what a joke.

  47. juanrayala says:

    I was so excited to see this film this weekend BUT Seth Rogan big mouth kept me from seeing it. I do lean right center and I generally ignore stupid liberal comments by my favorite stars BUT honestly I getting tired of these idiots insulting their fans. I’m no longer going to these idiots my hard earn money. The so many great films to watch out there. I can choose to be picky

  48. Dan says:

    Just finally saw it. Boyle knocked the direction out of the park, and Sorokin’s script was phenomenal. Fassbender brilliantly portrayed Jobs, and while I knew he would do it well, I couldn’t quite picture him as Jobs… until I watched the movie.

    Shame it’s underperforming. As a tech enthusiast and software developer, I am far from a fan of Jobs. He promoted tightly controlled systems, which is the bane of any enthusiast, and his “innovation” stopped at user design, rarely pushing the bounds of technology. Being in the industry to some degree, I respect him though, as far as his professional life. As a person, I strongly disliked him.

    To add to that, my late godfather was one of the many dropped from Apple when Jobs returned.

    Still, this film turned this highly dislikable, egomaniacal person built to be larger than life into just another flawed human. It ultimately changed my opinion of the man, and that’s not easy to do. It’s a great movie and it’s a shame it’s not being widely viewed.

    It makes me wonder what kind of legacy Jobs has really left. When he was the face of Apple, I’m sure his name alone would have been a huge draw. I guess his popularity, his God-like status, stretched only as far as his products in life. People used to preach his name, and now won’t even see a movie of him, whether it’s pandering to his fans or showing an honest look at the man.

  49. Michael was brilliant and played Steve Jobs so beautifully even though he did not look like him. Maybe he was too scary good and reopened old wounds.

  50. Dave Craig says:

    It’s interesting that the millions of Apple fan boys will not line up to see either movie about Steve Jobs.

    While watching this film, I kept thinking that Leonardio Decaprio would have been perfect in the lead role. But the Steve Jobs movie needs more. It needs to introduce the role of Bill Gates as his major nemesis and play up that competition, including Gates being the savior of Apple at one point.

    The role of Steve Wozniak is presented as just a whiny, annoying one dimensional nerd, instead of the cofounder of Apple, and there must have been more to this guy, as he is a major inventor of technology.

    Kate Winslet plays her role too unappealing with an unattractive accent. Normally she’s sexy.

    Finally, the fact that the film ends abruptly with no mention of the Apple products that most movie goers would identify with, created major word-of-mouth disappointment, i.e. oh bummer, now I wont bother going…

More Film News from Variety