MovieChat Forums > Steve Jobs (2015) Discussion > My problem....

My problem....

posted 8 years ago by drew1116
2 replies | jump to latest

Is that I have read Walter Isaacson's book and take it as mostly gospel. Jobs approved the autobiography and granted LENGTHY interviews, submitted old pictures, etc.

That being said, Fassbender's Jobs is quite a bit different than the one I think I knew. This shouldn't detract from the movie, but it does for me. It's called Steve Jobs after all and I expect more accuracy even if it isn't a documentary.

As it is, I think it's a solid movie although a bit long. The acting was great overall and it was enjoyable to watch. But I couldn't help but think, "that's not Jobs".

For one, Jobs was much more brutal than the one portrayed in the movie. Jobs was also very stingy. I'm not sure Chrisann received both a house and money in her bank account. Jobs was also a pretty emotional guy, sometimes crying when things didn't go his way. Fassbender played him rather stoically I found. All in all, Tim Cook should be thrilled with this movie's portrayal of him.

By the way, Woz was long gone by the iMac launch only acting as an "ambassador" for Apple. That argument scene never happened and never would have. Woz was much too shy and non-confrontational to air laundry like that in a public venue.

If I had to choose, I would definitely choose Kutcher's Jobs as the superior film if you really want to "know" Steve Jobs. He clearly looks the part and the details in that film are much more closely followed, although there were some liberties taken, no doubt (biker scene, for example).

[–] Snatchy 8 years ago

Yes, I agree 100%. I have read Isaccson's bio, Steve Wozniak's autobiography, several other non-fiction books related to Apple, and have seen Triumph of the Nerds, Pirates of Silicon Valley, and Kutcher's "Jobs" movie. So I'm very familiar with the subject matter.

It's pretty clear that the accuracy of the movie was compromised by limiting it to just three events and a handful of people in Steve Jobs' life. Instead of being able to see him in a variety of settings talking to a variety of people, we get three ridiculously dense, convoluted scenes with huge amounts of exposition and people not acting at all like their real life counterparts (Woz especially) because they need to fill in the gaps for all the people and events that are not captured in the movie.

Fassbender seemed to make no effort to look, sound, or act like Jobs until the 3rd act, when he finally dons the signature black mock turtleneck and blue jeans and has grey hair. But by that point it's like "why even bother?".

I'm not sure what this movie was even trying to be. It certainly wasn't a biography. I guess you might call it an abstract character study, but even there I didn't feel like the real Jobs was ever accurately portrayed. It's basically 2 hours of him being an insufferable dick, with no indication of why anyone would ever work for him or enjoy his company.

[–] drew1116 8 years ago

I think "abstract character study" is a good way of putting it. Jobs in real life was much more difficult than how he was portrayed in the movie. At least he was compromising in the film and had human moments of seeming compassion. The real Jobs was much less so, at least in accordance with Isaacson's bio. Where were all the "this is sh*t" dressdowns?