Aaron Sorkin ‘Steve Jobs’ fantasy flops hard

“‘Steve Jobs,’ the dramatic, fictionalized depiction of Apple’s cofounder written by Aaron Sorkin and starring Michael Fassbender, has flopped on its national release, bringing in just $7.3 million for a film that cost $30 million to make,” Daniel Eran Dilger reports for AppleInsider.

“The movie previously opened to the highest per-theater average of the year in a limited release involving just three theaters in New York City and Los Angeles, resulting in some predictions that the movie might bring in as much as $19 million over its opening weekend,” Dilger reports. “However, outside of key urban audiences, the film failed to attract interest across the 2,000 theaters showing it this weekend.”

Dilger reports, “The controversial bio pic has drawn significant criticism from Apple executives—and other tech industry luminaries who were close to Jobs, including Walt Mossberg—as being inaccurate and failing to capture the real identity of the man who had such a profound impact on consumer technology across many decades.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: GIGO. (Look it up, Aaron.)

Steve Jobs’ widow continues to speak out against ‘Steve Jobs’ movie – October 22, 2015
Mossberg: The Steve Jobs I knew isn’t in Aaron Sorkin’s ‘Steve Jobs’ movie – October 21, 2015
Why Danny Boyle filmed ‘Steve Jobs’ in three different formats – October 16, 2015
‘Steve Jobs’ movie is fiction, blatantly inaccurate; yet another con job from Aaron Sorkin – October 14, 2015
Paid consultant Woz on ‘Steve Jobs’ movie claims accuracy doesn’t matter – October 13, 2015
Universal releases new 2:20-minute scene from ‘Steve Jobs’ – October 9, 2015
The Steve Jobs in ‘Steve Jobs’ is a fictional character invented by Aaron Sorkin – October 8, 2015
Jony Ive joins chorus of insiders’ complaints about new ‘Steve Jobs’ movie – October 8, 2015
The Strange Saga of ‘Steve Jobs’: A widow’s threats, high-powered spats and the Sony hack – October 7, 2015
‘Steve Jobs’ director Danny Boyle warns of ‘tremendous, terrifying power’ of tech giants like Apple – October 7, 2015
Forbes reviews ‘Steve Jobs’: ‘An electrifying interpretive dance of abstract biographical cinema’ – October 7, 2015
Steve Jobs’ daughter Lisa skips movie screening, but parties with cast – October 7, 2015
Philip Elmer-DeWitt reviews ‘Steve Jobs’ movie: ‘I loved it’ – October 7, 2015
Aaron Sorkin: Steve Jobs just wanted to be loved – October 6, 2015
The ‘Steve Jobs’ movie that Sony, DiCaprio, and Bale didn’t want is now an Oscar favorite – October 6, 2015
Michael Fassbender already the odds-on favorite to win an Oscar for ‘Steve Jobs’ – October 5, 2015
Steve Jobs’ widow and friends take aim at Hollywood over ‘Steve Jobs’ biopic – October 5, 2015
‘Steve Jobs’ biopic too nasty to win Best Picture award – October 2, 2015
Andy Hertzfeld: ‘Steve Jobs’ movie ‘deviates from reality everywhere’ but ‘aspires to explore and expose the deeper truths’ – October 2, 2015
Aaron Sorkin blasts Apple’s Tim Cook over ‘Steve Jobs’ critique: ‘You’ve got a lot of nerve’ – September 25, 2015


      1. Jobs was not liberal in speaking out against the existence of teachers unions. He said they were antithetical to real quality education.

        Jobs was not liberal in building the most successful capitalistic enterprise in America today. Liberals detest capitalism and wealth and free enterprise. Jobs used the freedom he had as an American to the max.

        Jobs was not liberal in refusing to give free WIFI to the citizens of Cupertino in return for approval of his amazing new HQ plan. Jobs said Apple paid plenty in taxes and could go elsewhere if the super liberal city council made ridiculous demands.

        Jobs had liberal positions on many things. He lived his life as a conservative in many respects.

        1. Yes, Kent. He actually thought about issues and had a range of opinions from very progressive to conservative. This is similar to anyone who actually uses their brains and THINKS.

          This is in very marked contrast to frothing, knee-jerk political fundamentalists such as yourself – who simply hold the doctrinaire opinion in a religious manner – who can ALWAYS be counted on for spittle-flecked, right-wing ravings, no matter what the topic.

          1. You are wrong of course . President Obama is 100% liberal. Even 100% radical left. So is Michael Moore. So is Nancy Pelosi. And Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and Aaron Sorkin. Today’s liberals are not allowed to be anything but liberal leftists. Ask Joe Lieberman.

        2. Nobody (and I mean NOBODY) is 100% liberal or conservative.

          Perhaps only nutcases.

          SOME conservative ideas make sense. Others are complete BS.

          SOME liberal ideas make sense. Others are complete BS.

          Your view of liberals is extremily radical. I consider myself a liberal (not 100%, as I said), and I like capitalism (though, I have some criticism), like wealth (as long as I don’t step over my fellow humans to obtain it), and as an entrepreneur, I love free enterprise.

          “Liberal” does not mean “communist”. In other countries, people against government intervention are called “liberals”.

          Sorry to put it this way, but your position appears dogmatic and radical to me. I hope I’m mistaken. Things are not black and white. There are several shades of grey between your position and a hardcore “liberal”.

          I’m a privileged citizen of a poor country. That means, I have the luck of, without being a millionaire, still be in the 10% top of living standards here. There’s a saying conservatives love: “Give a poor man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and feed him forever”.

          While there’s a lot of wisdom in that saying (let me highlight it again, it contains a lot of wisdom), what good does it makes to teach how to fish, when the poor man has no fishing pole, no net, no boat or no food to make it to the sea?

          So, there’s got to be a middle ground, where we can just ignore our fellow men’s dire situation, but at the same time, not to raise a generation of freeloaders.

          If someone see money as an objective and not as a mean for happiness (yes, money helps! Money doesn’t buy happiness, but it helps!), and see “wealth” as the simple and vain accumulation of money for the sake of accumulation of money, well…

          In the other hand, if we use money to DO things to help our fellow men AND at the same time, generate more money to cover our own needs, ensure our future and our kids, that’s great. I don’t mean to just give it away. I mean, creating jobs instead of outsourcing them, giving others the chance to grow, treating our employees well… I believe that counts.

          Anyway, it’s my point of view. One can aspire to a lot, and at the same time, do something right in the way. It doesn’t need to be incompatible.

          Does the desire of making money make me a conservative? So be it. Does the desire of helping others less fortunate than me makes me a liberal? Suits me well. I really don’t care much about the adjectives. To me, it’s al about the improvement of the human race a a whole. It takes BOTH to make it happen. The human race moves on with cooperation, understanding and team work. Radical positions and dogmatic points of view never, EVER achieved anything potsitive during humankind’s history.

          Nuff Said.

  1. Save your money and watch iSteve instead. When it came out people misunderstood the movie thinking it was about Steve Jobs when in fact it was satirising subsequent books and films trying to portray Jobs.

    1. I don’t know about them knowing ahead of time but you are right. For the most part, the subject is just not that interesting to most people. It would have been even less interesting without the made up drama.

  2. I thought the film was horribly inaccurate but I saw enough of Steve’s vision to clap and cheer at all the wrong times.

    This film was super enjoyable as a portrait of a tech visionary with family issues that reminded me of The real Steve without being anything like the real Steve. And that just speaks to Fassnender’s talent and Sorkin’s writing that I was reminded of awesome things I had forgotten about Steve.

    Besides I really like Seth Rogen when he isn’t making fart jokes.

    1. Similar here, Watched the movie and liked it, inspite of it being a “Steve Jobs is a terrible kinda guy” movie.

      Fassbender did a good job of showing a conflicted person trying to save a sinking Apple. He had the vision and pushed as hard as he could to keep it afloat. He was a very focused kinda guy while Woz was just likable and trying to be nice.

      Nice does not float a business. Professional and caring, yes. Nice, not so much.

  3. My take:
    1 it is too soon. Maybe in a decade.
    2 The script was shit and apparently highly fictional.
    3 A Brit to play Steve Jobs? In a nation of over 300 million, could we not have an American play an American icon?
    4 Since it was made by Comcast’s NBC/Universal, the fact that it flopped is even better.

    1. Remember how Laurene Jobs called around to all the A-listers telling them not to do this movie? Well, this is what happens. You get a Fassbender/Noah Wylie coin flip.

      Oh well, there’s always 2.0…

      1. Comcast – owners of Universal- is controlled by the Roberts family and they are hardcore REPUBLICANS.
        Maybe you meant ConservaTard Economics.
        The last Republican to balance a Federal Budget was Eisenhower and by today’s standards he would be considered a raging liberal.


  5. I said it a week ago and I will say it again: I will not see this hit piece or not even support it by watching it for free. Steve Jobs was a hero to me and I can’t stand seeing people try to pull him down to their level to make themselves feel less like the losers they are.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.