“It’s not exactly a shock to hear that Aaron Sorkin’s notorious box office flop Steve Jobs had another disastrous weekend at the box office,” Luke Dormehl reports for The Cult of Mac. “But exactly how poor a weekend it had may be something of a surprise.
Dormehl reports, “Now playing on just 326 screens (after being dumped from thousands due to poor earnings), the semi-biopic earned only $394,000 this past weekend.”
“To put that in perspective, it’s… slightly less than Apple brings in in revenue in one-and-half minutes,” Dormehl reports. “Yikes!”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Rarely has a movie so deserved to flop as this piece of shit fiction masquerading as a “biopic.” We revel in the schadenfreudian afterglow of this bomb.
Steve Jobs is Aaron Sorkin’s Ishtar, and deservedly so.
SEE ALSO:
Aaron Sorkin’s ‘Steve Jobs’ flick unceremoniously dumped out of theaters – November 9, 2015
Aaron Sorkin’s ‘Steve Jobs’ fiction’s box-office flop may hurt award hopes – November 9, 2015
Aaron Sorkin ‘Steve Jobs’ fantasy flops hard – October 26, 2015
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
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
And this fact proves what?????
Years ago, General Motors was losing a ton of money. My nephew’s lemonade stand made him about $30 over a weekend. So, his lemonade stand was a better investment than GM was at that time??? A better business to be in for the long term? You tell me.
just perspective…
Aaaaaw, Josh… calm down, don’t get all acted up about this…
it’s just some clean fun. For us.
1) GM only survived because of giant government bailouts. Is the govt. gonna to bail out Sorkin’s movie?
“So, his lemonade stand was a better investment than GM was at that time”?
depends on how much money you had to invest and how good a lemonade stall your nephew had.
If you had 20 dollars your nephew’s lemonade stand might have given you better returns. 20 bucks worth of lemons and sugar and (free?) water could give you a hundred dollars in profit or more i.e several hundred percent of your investment in possibly a short period of time. The percentage gain would doubtlessly be way better than if you had invested in GM for the same period.
(so it’s not size of business but profitability on investment. Problem is Sorkin’s film is LOSING money…. ).
2) the numbers show that Sorkin’s attempt to make a buck by attacking Apple failed but just burnt himself while Apple is doing fine. Besides the shlock in movie he also made publicity statements like “Apple uses child slaves at 17 cents an hour”. so he dislikes Apple but Apple is having the last laugh.
No wonder Christian Bale turned it down.
I read that the makers expected the movie to “build” after a “slow burn to ramp up” that would hold screens for weeks of steady and semi-respectable weekly grosses.
Another fantasy from the Sorkin camp. And, yay for this blatant hit job getting rubbed out at the box office.
*this was their argument after the first week of very disappointing returns, that is….
applealltheway,
You say “..the numbers show that Sorkin’s attempt to make a buck by attacking Apple failed..”
I saw this film at the weekend, and it’s by no means – in my opinion, anyway – an “..attempt to make a buck by attacking Apple”.
It has nothing to do with Apple. It’s a film about a quick-thinking character (..rather like the Zuckerberg character in “The Social Network”..) but on a more Shakespearean level than “The Social Network”.
It’s about a character called Steve Jobs, and his interactions with his family, friends and colleagues. It explores his relationships with a girlfriend – the mother of his child – and with his child. By extension, it explores relationships between other parents and their children.
It considers the character’s own upbringing, and the imagined effect of his rejection by his natural parents, the tentative relationship between his adoptive parents and himself (..during the initial period of adoption, before they were sure that they could keep him..) and also a suggested “surrogate father” relationship between the Steve Jobs character and the John Sculley character.
The film is not about Apple. The film is about the character Jobs’ relationships with his colleagues and family. It’s a “variation on a theme”, in the way that Vaughan Williams wrote variations on a theme of Thomas Tallis ..or any other composer, or painter, or poet, or photographer – or any other artist – may create variations on an existing theme, story, picture or another work: in this case, it’s a variation on a work (..like it or not..) by Walter Isaacson ..but nobody’s saying that Isaacson’s book, of course, is the DEFINITIVE version of Jobs’ life anyway.
It’s a riff on a life. It’s written by a screenwriter: it’s not meant to be fact. It’s an improvisation on a life, but using elements of an actual life. It’s made up, but it’s based upon actual people and actual events. It is a STORY. It uses the name “Steve Jobs” because the story “repackages”, if you like, some events in the life of Steve Jobs the real person.
It’s excellently written, consummately performed, and brilliantly directed and photographed ..in my opinion. But yours may differ.
Some background clarification: I’ve used Apple products since the Apple ][. I was asked by Apple to comment on (..give some opinion on..) the original Macintosh back in November 1983, before its unveiling in January 1984. I enjoyed an email correspondence with Steve Jobs, and suggested various improvements to Apple products and services which he IMMEDIATELY actioned, within hours: he was a VERY responsive guy. He sent me an enthusiastic email, out of the blue, when he’d just tried Randy O’s new-style version of iMovie, back whenever that was. He also sent me one or two Steve-style close-to-abusive messages when he thought I was pushing too hard on some programmer whom I thought should speed up ..he was DEFENDING his programmer(s) and saying that they needed time to finish some delicate work ..he was jumping to their defence (UK spelling).
But this film is NOT a list of SJ’s work, of his projects at Apple: it’s a three-act exploration of the temperament of a person who’s about to launch a new product, and his interaction, each of those three times, with another seven characters – the same seven characters each of those three times – to gradually fill-out the overall personality of the SJ character, so that we may draw some ideas about our own interactions with others, and some thoughts about our own home lives and business lives.
It’s a celebration of a mercurial character; it’s not a biography. It’s not a step-for-step examination of the actual Steve Jobs’ life, just as Shakespeare’s “Henry V” is not a step-for-step examination of the life of the actual king Henry.
It’s an exploration of a life LIKE Steve Jobs’, and it’s a two-hour take on the complexities of human personalities. It doesn’t harm Jobs in any way, it’s not real, it doesn’t demean Apple, it isn’t a bag of lies, it isn’t harmful to humans, it isn’t meant to be fact: remember what Steve said, about Apple being at the junction of technology and the liberal arts? ..well, this movie is an example of one of those “liberal arts”; it’s some movie-based storytelling, and it uses references to technology and to personality to weave a tapestry of interesting human behaviour (UK spelling).
Feel free – if Chris at MDN is happy to host it here – to give more of your opinions ..as you did, just before.. but I think it’s fair to say that your opinion is no more “correct” or right than mine ..and mine is no more “correct”, or “better”, than yours; you and I simply have opinions. That’s all they are. And they different from each other.