Ondrej Holzman Major production turbulence, an unconventional shooting schedule, high expectations, a great first weekend, and then a huge drop to the very bottom of the film charts. This is the story of one of the most anticipated pictures of autumn in a very short way Steve Jobs, who had quite different ambitions…
It's a fairly interesting story, from its beginning to its end, which may come sooner than most expected, and it will not be called Oscar, but the sinkhole of history. But it can still be something in between.
From DiCaprio to Fassbender
In late 2011, Sony Pictures acquired the film rights based on the authorized biography of Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson. Acclaimed Aaron Sorkin was chosen as the screenwriter, perhaps for his successful adaptation The Social Network about the beginnings of Facebook, and then things started happening.
It all started with the script itself, the writing of which Sorkin confirmed in mid-2012. He hired paid consultant Steve Wozniak, who co-founded Apple, to help him create a unique three-act "play". After a year and a half, when Sorkin finished his work, it became a question of a director.
Linking up with David Fincher, with whom he just worked on The Social Network, was extremely tempting for probably all parties. During the courtship, Fincher also chose Christian Bale, who was supposed to play Steve Jobs, for the lead role. But in the end, Fincher had excessive salary demands, which Sony Pictures was not willing to accept. Bale also backed out of the project.
The film was finally taken on by director Danny Boyle, known for the film Slumdog Millionaire, who for a change started dealing with another A-list actor, Leonardo DiCaprio. However, Christian Bale was also back in the game. However, the creators did not come up with a star name in the final, which was said to have been considered several more, and the choice fell on Michael Fassbender.
To make matters worse, the entire Sony Pictures studio suddenly backed out of the film, which was not helped by a hacker attack and the leakage of sensitive documents and e-mails. In November 2014, however, Universal Studios took over the project, confirmed Michael Fassbender in the lead role, and generally moved fairly quickly as time was pressing. Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlbarg were confirmed in other roles, and Kate Winslet was also finally caught.
Filming began in January of this year and was completed in four months. The premiere was announced for October and the tension could start to build.
From great reviews to a dash from the scene
We don't just recall the complex anabasis of the film's creation. A lot of what happened before the film was released in cinemas directly or indirectly affected its results. At first it looked great.
Film critics had o To Steve Jobs mostly the most positive opinion. As expected, Sorkin's script was praised, and for his acting performance, some even sent the underestimated Fassbender for an Oscar. Then, when the film began showing in select theaters in New York and Los Angeles in its first two weeks, it recorded literally record numbers as the 15th highest-grossing film on average per theater in history.
But then it came. Steve Jobs spread across the United States, and the numbers that came in after the first and second weekends were truly shocking. The movie was a complete flop. The revenues were fundamentally less than the creators imagined. Their projections ranged between $15 million and $19 million in their opening weekend. But this goal was achieved only after a whole month of screenings.
When he also scored in the last weekend Steve Jobs a significant drop in attendance, over two thousand American theaters withdrew it from the program. A huge disappointment, behind which we can find several factors.
[youtube id=”tiqIFVNy8oQ” width=”620″ height=”360″]
You will believe Fassbender
Steve Jobs is definitely an unconventional film, and practically everyone who has seen the film reports that they expected something quite different. Although Sorkin revealed in advance how he wrote the script (it consists of three half-hour scenes, each taking place in real time before the launch of the three key products of Jobs' life), and the actors also revealed a lot of details, the creators managed to serve up surprises.
However, it was a double surprise, both good and bad. From a filmmaker's point of view, he reaped Steve Jobs positive feedback. The novel script interwoven with hundreds of interviews, in which Steve Jobs was always involved, and Michael Fassbender in the main role, received praise. Although in the end, the film did not get a truly A-list actor decorated with various Hollywood honors, the move with the 38-year-old Fassbender with German-Irish roots was successful.
The filmmakers decided not to disguise Fassbender as Jobs, but to leave him a bit of his own. And while Fassbender and the Apple co-founder didn't really have much in common, as the film progresses, you become more and more convinced that there really is je Steve Jobs and eventually you'll believe Fassbender.
But whoever expected to see Fassbender, or rather Steve Jobs, in the so-called act, when, as one of the greatest visionaries of his time, he invents and brings to the world key products, he will be disappointed. Sorkin didn't write a movie about Steve Jobs and Apple, but he practically wrote a character study of Steve Jobs, in which the things around which everything revolves - i.e. Macintosh, NeXT and iMac - are secondary.
At the same time, however, it is not a biographical film, Sorkin himself resisted this designation. Instead of presenting Jobs' life as a whole, where he would have walked from the small garage of his parents to the technological giant with whom he changed the world, Sorkin carefully selected several important people in Jobs' life and presented their fates in the three half hours that preceded Jobs' entrance to the stage.
The apple community said no
The idea is certainly interesting and, in terms of filmmaking, excellently executed. However, the problem came with the content. We could easily summarize the whole thing as a film about a father's relationship with his daughter, who initially refused to acknowledge paternity, even though he named a computer after her, and finally finds a way to her. One of the most controversial and weakest moments of Jobs' life was chosen by Sorkin as the main topic. From a life in which Jobs accomplished more than many others and will certainly not be remembered for his episode with his daughter.
The film tries to portray Jobs as an uncompromising leader who does not look back on the way to his goal, is willing to walk over corpses, and not even his best friend or closest colleague can stand in his way. And this is where Sorkin stumbled. Unfortunately for him, he ran into the toughest wall made up of Jobs' closest friends, family, friends, co-workers and Apple itself.
Probably no one denies that Jobs, as described above and presented in the film, was not. However, Sorkin didn't let us see Jobs's other side for even a minute, when he was able to listen, be generous and bring to the world a number of breakthrough products, all of which are enough to mention the iPhone. "Apple Village" rejected the film.
Jobs' wife, Laurene, tried to stop filming and is said to have even urged Christian Bale and Leonardo DiCaprio not to star in the film. Even Jobs's successor in the role of Apple CEO Tim Cook, who more or less spoke for the entire company, was not satisfied with the tone of the film. Many journalists who had known Jobs personally for many years also spoke negatively.
"The Steve Jobs I knew is not in this movie," he wrote in his commentary, respected journalist Walt Mossberg, according to whom Sorkin created an entertaining film that carries the realities of Jobs' life and career, but does not really capture them.
Thus, two worlds were pitted against each other: the film world and the fan world. While praising the first film, the second mercilessly dismissed it. And whether we like it or not, across the board the world of fans has won. There is no other way to explain the complete flop in American cinemas than the fact that the audience was really discouraged by the way Apple et al. approached the film, even though the film as such may be worth watching.
However, the truth is that only Apple-savvy viewers can really enjoy it. If we accept that Sorkin adjusted the real events to fit into his well-thought-out scenario, even if he tried to make things up at least, the film has one more condition for a perfect experience: to know Apple, computers and Steve Jobs.
Coming to a movie with no idea about it all, you'll leave confused. Unlike Fincher's adaptation of Sorkin's film The Social Network, which simply introduced Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, is sinking Steve Jobs immediately and uncompromisingly into the main event, and the viewer who does not know the connections will easily get lost. So it is primarily a film not for the masses, but for Apple fans. The problem is that you were rejected.
So how in the beginning some of the most optimistic comments talked about by Steve Jobs about the Oscars, now the creators hope that they will be able to make up for the financial shortfall at least outside the United States and not break even. The film goes to the rest of the world, including the Czech Republic, with a one-month delay, and it will be interesting to see if its reception elsewhere will be similarly lukewarm.
So that he also didn't have one of the best earnings per cinema when they only sent him to a few cinemas. If they sent it nationwide, it would definitely turn out differently
Otherwise, a great movie. Too bad it ended after two hours...