“It was just confirmed that Michael Fassbender will be portraying Steve Jobs in a new biopic,” Ross McDonagh reports for The Daily Mail.
“And fans got a first glimpse of the Irishman on set of the film in a neighbouring town near San Francisco and the tech mecca of Silicon Valley,” McDonagh reports. “The 37-year-old looked to be fully embodying the Apple founder and innovator on Friday as he sported the shoulder length hair that Jobs wore during the 1980s.”
More in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Universal Pictures announces full cast of ‘Steve Jobs’ as biopic begins shooting – January 28, 2015
Filming for Steve Jobs biopic underway at Apple co-founder’s childhood home – January 17, 2015
Perla Haney-Jardine to play Lisa Jobs in Universal’s ‘Steve Jobs’ biopic – January 6, 2015
Kate Winslet eyed for female lead in ‘Steve Jobs’ biopic – December 22, 2014
Jeff Daniels eyed to play former Apple CEO John Sculley in ‘Steve Jobs’ biopic – December 9, 2014
John Sculley: Forcing Steve Jobs out of Apple was a mistake – April 18, 2014
Failed Apple CEO John Sculley: If I were Samsung, I would tap Ron Johnson – April 10, 2013
If John Sculley says Apple must do this then Apple probably shouldn’t – January 17, 2013
Former Apple CEO Sculley gives his take on Steve Jobs – January 13, 2012
John Sculley: I wish I told Steve Jobs ‘This is your company, let’s figure out how you can come back and be CEO’ – Septemeber 13, 2011
John Sculley: Apple’s big mistake was hiring me as CEO – October 14, 2010
Sculley: Uh, maybe I shouldn’t have fired Steve Jobs – June 7, 2010
Sorry I have my doubts, much as I like Fassbender as an actor. Give me a talented unknown to play the part. I don’t need the known-actor-distraction-transference-effect.
Fassbender is definitely talented, but he has more openly “evil” look versus, say, Christian bale.
Besides, this film is made by Apple’s competitor Sony, so this choice, it is based in quite bad official biography.
So there are a lot of doubts; lets see.
Sony is no longer making this movie. Universal is. Also, the decision to use Fassbinder was made by Danny Boyle, the Academy award winning director, and was opposed by Sony because of his lack of a Box Office track record. This was one the key issues that caused the development team to make a deal with Universal instead of Sony.
The biography did have mixed reviews, but was loved by many, and enormously successful.
I’m a big fan of both Sorkin and Jobs and really hoping this movie lives up to expectations.
One thing you won’t get from Boyle is a sell out, he will put his own seek on it and while the biography will be the basis h won’t be a slave to it, he is his own man. Meanwhile to me Bale has a very menacing unsympathetic look that might have condemned the portrayal to instant dislike in the eyes of the audience when as a difficult person anyway Jobs could do with all the help he can get in that regard. Fast endear seems much more neutral to me though clearly you can’t cast someone who is a laugh a minute if you want any accuracy.
I completely agree about Boyle
The irony is Fassbender played an Android.
Yeah I wouldn’t want Boyle to be slavishly basing all his material on the biography by Walter Isaacson either.
For major fun I can actually see a real kitschy stage comedy-musical made from Steve’s life. Songs like “I’m dying!” musically set to Peter Pan’s “I’m flying!” – great ideas like that. (In fact several Peter Pan musical songs, rewritten of course, would be appropriate.)
I’m kidding. I’d still go see it, but I’m kidding.
Actually, Boyle does not have much to do with it. Whole concept is by Sorkin. However would implement it is secondary. Boyle can only work with what Sorkin wrote.
That’s not even remotely true. Boyle can (and will) put his mark on the film, or he wouldn’t have taken it. He has his choice of just about any script on the planet he wants, do you really think he’s going to take a project where he’s “just a pair of hands”? Sorkin is making the blueprint, it’s up to Boyle and his team to figure out how he wants to follow (or not follow) it. I’m sure there’s enough respect for each other that they will collaborate on a clear vision for the film.
Boyle does not have a choice. He was hired to implement Sorkin’s script. Tiny bits here and there, of course, under Boyle’s control, but not much.
This would be totally different thing if the producers would first hire director, and he would have an idea and searched for scriptwriters to write it down.
In this case both idea, concept and the script itself is Sorkin. Director is literally secondary to this.
The biography did *not* get mixed reviews. On Amazon it has 4.5 out of five stars from over 4100 readers. On Goodreads it has 4.1 stars out of five from almost 251,000 readers.
At least here in the moated castle that is MDN, the book received mixed reviews.
I didn’t read it, but I am told that the author gave little space to the nEXT years. Yet one-third of Sorkin’s script reportedly is devoted to the nEXT product introduction.
Indeed, the very structure of the script departs from that of the biography, and it makes me hope that Sorkin has seized on a dramatic story arc of his own, distinct from the shallower theme adopted by the author.
If Sorkin is as canny as the author was tone-deaf, he’ll illuminate for movie-goers the two important things: the enormity of the technology, and Steve’s singular vision in bringing the future to life.
Sorry, but you can’t opine a book that you haven’t read. I read it and completely disagree that Isaacson gave short shrift to the nEXT years. (Indeed, the book explains why those years were pivotal.) How can you say that “the very structure of the script departs from that of the biography” that you haven’t read? That Isaacson (the author) was tone deaf? It’s a very good book and Isaacson is an outstanding biographer. You should read it.
Funny, back when the book came out, I defended Isaacson here on the basis of his previous work, I was rewarded with little better than frowns. In fact the cacade of negative comments persuaded me to not read the book. And I fell in line with the MDN take, that the author misrepresented Steve Jobs. Now you’re differing with that consensus. Hm. One can’t really trust the herd, can one? Pity, it’s so much easier than thinking for oneself 🙂
Is it still OK to opine about movies based on Rotten Tomato reviews instead of viewing them all?
You can opine on anything without having read or seen it. It just doesn’t carry much credibility, that’s all. 😉
petelp sez: Danny Boyle, the Academy award winning director, and was opposed by Sony because of his lack of a Box Office track record
This is entirely typical of Marketing-As-Management, the current fate of Sony. Really sad. It says a lot about current Hollyweird in general.
BTW: Universal Studios is owned by Comcast. *groan*
You might well have understood my post as intended, but just to be clear:
Sony opposed casting Fassbinder because of FASSBINDER’S lack of box office track record.
I noticed that my post might have been interpreted as though BOYLE’S box office was at issue
Thank you. Either way: Sony has gone into decay.
Seems so
I think Demetri Martin would have been a better pick.
As much as I like Demetri Martin , I seriously doubt he would be able to convey job’s passion and intensity.
He’s just too nice.
Fassbender’s too old to play 70s & 80s Steve. They’re going to have to “Benjamin Button” the heck out of his face for those early Apple years.
Steve Jobs is a man of our time- fresh in our memory and was an American with features from his Syrian father. Why is an Irishman playing an American?
How many Americans get cast in Irish films?
Let me Google this for you. http://nypost.com/2014/03/14/the-10-worst-attempts-at-irish-movies/