Steve Jobs will be in theaters on October 9th.
Set backstage at three iconic product launches and ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac, Steve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution to paint an intimate portrait of the brilliant man at its epicenter.
Michael Fassbender plays Steve Jobs, the pioneering founder of Apple, with Academy Award-winning actress Kate Winslet starring as Joanna Hoffman, former marketing chief of Macintosh. Steve Wozniak, who co-founded Apple, is played by Seth Rogen, and Jeff Daniels stars as former Apple CEO John Sculley. The film also stars Katherine Waterston as Chrisann Brennan, Jobs’ ex-girlfriend, and Michael Stuhlbarg as Andy Hertzfeld, one of the original members of the Apple Macintosh development team.
The film’s website is: http://www.stevejobsthefilm.com/.
MacDailyNews Take: Fingers crossed!
SEE ALSO:
See Michael Fassbender as ‘Steve Jobs’ in first movie trailer – May 18, 2015
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
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
For me, it is more like:
“Watch Michael Fassbender as Michael Fassbender in new official trailer”
Besides, they again repeat this nonsense about Jobs not being able to do anything (which is false since Jobs has programmed since 1960s and was engineer long before meeting Wozniak, and was professional engineers before the supposed scene has happened).
Steve Jobs wasn’t programming at 5 years old.
He was since late 1960s, which is, you know, 1960s — exactly what I wrote.
Paul King, worked at NeXT for 2 years
Bill Gates’ reputation is that he was an excellent coder in his day, and technically astute and incisive throughout his time leading Microsoft. In college (at Harvard), Bill Gates and Paul Allen wrote a full BASIC language interpreter in assembly language for a computer they didn’t even have access to and which had only 4000 bytes of memory. They wrote it on a PDP-10 at Harvard that was running an Intel 8080 emulator. Bill Gates once said that he remembered every technical detail and variable name of those early programs, although surely that would not be true today.
Steve Jobs was never a programmer. He was a product visionary, astute businessman, and excellent if eccentric salesman. It was Steve Wozniak who built the Apple I (one) while Steve promoted it. That said (from my experience working at his company NeXT), Steve had an amazing knack for understanding technical concepts and how they could be relevant. While he had never programmed, his technical people convinced him of the revolutionary power of object-oriented programming. As a result, he made object-oriented design the central theme of the NeXT machine and he developed a great sales pitch for its ability to reduce code bulk: “The line of code you don’t write is the line of code you never have to debug.”
Written 15 Jun, 2013. 152,053 views.
Nailed it !
Jobs was a programmer for many years. However, not since the time of Apple, as his passions were much more aligned elsewhere.
I don’t believe you’re correct about this. According to just about everyone including Steve himself, he never wrote code. He certainly didn’t write code during the 60s. Jobs was a bit older than I am. I was a baby and a toddler during the 60s. I started coding daily in 1976.
“Steve didn’t ever code,” writes Wozniak. “He wasn’t an engineer and he didn’t do any original design, but he was technical enough to alter and change and add to other designs.”
Steve did have an uncanny ability to look at a product and tell what it needed to be for us to want and need it. He was a true visionary in many ways. I’d swap skillsets in a second.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-never-wrote-computer-code-for-apple-2013-8#ixzz3efTevAb3
Do not confuse what Wozniak (a loose canon on many issues) tells with actual Steven’s history. He has started as programmer in 1960s since later 1960s (for huge HP machines), being schooler yet.
However, as the title of your link correctly states, he did not write code for Apple; and I did not state otherwise.
(Sorry for the sloppy writing; there is still no way to edit comments.)
Horrible choice of actor… Nothing says Steve about him.. Not the looks , not the demeanor , not the voice and tone… Nada.
What a shame becouse otherwise it seens to be a nice production.
One the other hand, around 0:42, it clearly looked and sounded like Andy Hertzfeld. They at least got that him right.
Blame Danny Boyle.
Fassbender is a credible actor. But I’m confused on why Danny Boyle would not have had the make-up team change his hair and appearance to make Fassbender approximate Jobs. Further, Fassbender used his own voice, and did not appear to have any voice coaching to use the vocal characteristics of Jobs, again, a very curious decision by Boyle.
You can’t slap a pair of glasses and a black mock turtleneck on an actor and call it a day. I find Boyle’s decisions on this to be very curious. If the audience wants to understand Steve Jobs, first, the actor has to present a reasonable facsimile of the subject’s character.
It’s easy to point the blame on Michael Fassbender. But it’s up to director Danny Boyle to instruct the cast on how to create the personas of the historical figures they were hired to portray.
Compare Michael Fassbender’s Steve Jobs to Ben Kingsley’s Ghandi, or Helen Mirren’s Queen Elizabeth, as two examples. In both cases, and many others, the director, actor and make-up crew took pains to make the character feel like the original. Why Boyle chose not to do this is very peculiar.
I have an uneasy feeling of how this movie will turn out.
This looks terrible. Fassbender as Steve Jobs is about as good as Britney Spears as Michelle Obama.
Okay…
When are they going to get him right?
Im beginning to think that the only accurate movie on Steve Jobs is a documentary.
Maybe Steve is one person that a film should never be made about…
Read “Eve’s Hungry,” by Mackay Bell. (Eve’ bites the Apple.) It’s on Amazon. It’s the only thing that comes close to getting Jobs right. Plus, it’s funny.
Read Chrisann Brennan’s “The Bite in the Apple” for another interesting perspective.
This garbage won’t get one penny out of me.
I’ll watch it on Netflix in a few months
Oh, no! I guess they’re doomed- might as well trash it! Without Your penny, why bother?…
Still the same old lies being regurgitated, I see. Unless they are contradicted elsewhere in the film.
Hard to know, but this trailer makes it look like the movie is a “Steve’s a Prick” extravaganza.
The soundtrack for the Social Network (another Aaron Sorkin film) was written by Trent Reznor, and many credit the soundtrack for bringing that film together . . . the soundtrack for the Steve Jobs film is being composed by Daniel Pemberton. Here is a link to an interview with him from 2012 . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK_5sdUbkiY
More revisionist history from another ‘CIA approved’ script from the bowels of Hollyweird. Why does it seem that the sooner a movie gets made about a real life event / person, the more propaganda and revisionism is involved?
Read Chrisann Brennan’s “The Bite in the Apple” for another interesting perspective.
It seems to me that everyone here was expecting a docudrama. What we got was exactly what was promised: a a Hollywood film that is a work of fiction, written by one of the top screenwriters of today (Sorkin) and inspired (re-read that word) by a real life.
The screenplay is NOT a transcript from some actual events. It is a result of creative effort of a well-known screenwriter.
There are very few Hollywood movies that were inspired by real events, and in which the dramatic story closely follows the events from real life. This is because rarely do events form real life line up perfectly for a 110-minute motion picture story line. One such film is Apollo 13, where film dialogue relied extensively on transcripts from communications during that fateful voyage. And even there, many scenes were completely made up in order to propel the story forward.
Based on the cast, director and writer, I have a feeling that this will be a good Hollywood film. However, I’m virtually 100% certain that vast majority of MDN followers won’t like it and would consider the 1999 TV movie “Pirates of Silicon Valley” (the one with third-rate TV actors and no-name director and writers) much better… mainly because its story is more true to the actual events than the Sorkin screenplay.
Hollywood doesn’t make accurate biopics. This is usually done better by TV people (with documentaries, or ‘docu-dramas’). Hollywood does what Hollywood does best: fictional entertainment (you know, Terminator, Jurassic Park, Frozen…).
I thought Aaron Sorkin did renowned work in television. Not Hollywood.
No movie is ever true, and not because of Hollywood or writer slant or artistic license or story compression but because a person is a multiplicity, perceived and interpreted by others through different prismatic shards. The closer to the present day, the more the multiplicity.
The Fallen Hero myth is nicely framed by T. L. Sherred in his short story E For Effort. No public figure matches everyone’s perception of him or her.
I’m there on Day 1
I have the ultimate respect for Sorkin. However, the casting is horrible, this does not look or even sound like Jobs to me. No further comment because I HAVEN’T ACTUALLY SEEN THE DAMN MOVIE YET!!!
Seth Rogan as Woz? Not even close.
It’s disappointing to hear the usual ignorant mythology being repeated in this ignorant script. *sigh*
Exm: “The user interface is stolen…” NO. Go read a book about Apple history. Wikipedia managed to correctly summarize the history:
In return for the right to buy US$1,000,000 of pre-IPO stock, Xerox granted Apple Computer three days access to the PARC facilities. After visiting PARC, they came away with new ideas that would complete the foundation for Apple Computer’s first GUI computer, the Apple Lisa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.
Then Apple added their own GUI innovations and design to both the Lisa and obviously Mac OS.
But no doubt we’ll be hearing the ignorant mythology for all eternity. So much for the accuracy of ‘history’ among the masses.
And of course, how much do you want to bet that the film screws up the story of Steve Job’s decision to leave Apple? 🙄
No one notices it’s released on what would’ve been John Lennon’s 75th birthday.. (John Lennon was the leader of a band from the 1960’s called ‘The Beatles’, Jobs cited them many times as a source of inspiration….hey, I don’t know, maybe some of you never heard of the Beatles… I have run across such people, y’know.)
Don’t feel so bad if it misrepresents big Steve. The impression that most people have of the Confederate south comes not from history but from “Gone With The Wind”. Maybe…maybe this movie will have a scene where Steve comes back to Apple that is shot very much like the scene where Scarlett returns to Tara.
Gawd, that would be funny.
Interesting that you bring that up. Lennon also had many movies made about him, all discarded as sacrilege, pablum, and bad casting just as we are hearing about the movies based on Jobs. A mere trailer is enough fodder to induce foaming amongst those of us who conceptualised him differently. The same may be said of books written about both men. Truth is never presented. It must be teased out of the cracks in the mirror held before us.
There will never be a perfect movie about the legend. Yes, Pirates of Silicon Valley was entertaining, but it was just that, nice to see. What, in my opinion will work, is if a mini-series, of sorts, gets created. For instance, like many have been in HBO or Netflix. His story needs to be told in episodes, not a two-hour movie. He has so many life events that truly need to be told and acted out so carefully. I would not mind this approach at all. It is crying out for this in so many ways. I am just surprised nobody with the creative know-how has started such a project.