Aaron Sorkin’s Steve Jobs

D'Agger

Just saw this online - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/oct/10/steve-jobs-movie-sony-biopic

What do you think - I liked the Social Network, what I liked most was the soundtrack, but also the casting - they got it bang on the money...

So who would you cast to play Steve Jobs?? It's a tall order tbf

Morag

Not really, they should get Noah Wyle to do it again.
He was very good in the role in Pirates of Silicon valley.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0168122/

bigneacy

Probably will be you know...

Mickeroo

Larry David ftw! He kind of looks a bit like him and the Curb theme music could kick in everytime there's a hilarious misunderstanding.

Nervous Wreck

Do not want.

Sad Professor

Jobs's life would make a great film. Forget about the products, he was just an extraordinary individual. Even the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985, from the foundation of Apple to Jobs's firing by Scully, would make a great film. But then there's the 1996 period onward, when he returned to the company and led it from the brink of bankruptcy to being the valuable company in the world. His arrogance, abrasiveness, charisma and obsessive perfectionism would make for a truly unforgettable film character.

Hopefully Sony will give Fincher first dibs on this. He'd be perfect for it, not least because he shares Jobs's tendency to micromanage and drive people around him insane.

And Noah Wyle was pretty good, even Jobs thought so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIClAanU7Os

D'Agger

I've only seen bits and pieces of Pirates of the Silicon Valley but I do like Wyle as an actor.

I'd be very excited about Fincher getting it - did an excellent job on The Social Network and I'd like to see what he would do with this - I'd imagine it'd be a long film though if they're going from the start - Jobs had a brilliantly eventful life - it's not like Zuckerberg who's the new kid on the block - Jobs did it all really.

foxyboxer

Christian Bale.

He has a similar look to a younger Jobs. And would be more than willing to lose the weight for the latter scenes.

krudler

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Do not want.

why? would make a great story.

D'Agger

krudler wrote: »

why? would make a great story.

If done right - it's a big ask due to the amount of important moments he's had in his life...founding Apple, being shafted out of Apple, returning to steady the ship, his battle with cancer etc.

Sad Professor

If there is a film, I don't think it needs to cover his whole life. It should remain fairly focused on Apple. His battle with cancer isn't all that relevant imo. In fact, I think the film could probably end in the mid-2000s around the time he was diagnosed and before he experienced any weight loss. His commencement speech at Stanford in 2005 would probably be a good note to end it on. The years immediately following his return to Apple and what he set in motion during that time are more important than seeing him launch the iPad 2, etc.

mikhail

PaulieC wrote: »

So who would you cast to play Steve Jobs?? It's a tall order tbf

There's extensive video coverage of him. Granted, it's mostly of him speech-making, but any competent actor could do a good impersonation. Why do you think biopics are so popular at the Oscars?

D'Agger

Sad Professor wrote: »

If there is a film, I don't think it needs to cover his whole life. It should remain fairly focused on Apple. His battle with cancer isn't all that relevant imo. In fact, I think the film could probably end in the mid-2000s around the time he was diagnosed and before he experienced any weight loss. His commencement speech at Stanford in 2005 would probably be a good note to end it on. The years immediately following his return to Apple and what he set in motion during that time are more important than seeing him launch the iPad 2, etc.

Very nice idea about the Stanford speech

D'Agger

mikhail wrote: »

There's extensive video coverage of him. Granted, it's mostly of him speech-making, but any competent actor could do a good impersonation. Why do you think biopics are so popular at the Oscars?

It's more than just putting on a voice though - he was an exuberant character who also had a fiery temper....I think you'd want a good calibre of actor to pull it off tbh

JP Liz V1

Stanley Tucci

D'Agger

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Stanley Tucci

Good call, like him as an actor!

Oafley Jones

PaulieC wrote: »

Good call, like him as an actor!

Stanley Tucci, Larry David, John Malkovich?!? These guys are far too old. You'll be looking for a guy who can play from his 20s-56 and none of them qualify.

Oafley Jones

Actually here's something that'll give the fanboys nightmares.






He's about the right age.

Sad Professor

Yeah, even Wyle is too old now. They need someone in their mid-20s or 30 at the oldest. The 80s stuff is the main part of Jobs's story. His return to Apple is just the third act.

JP Liz V1

Ryan Gosling

Mickeroo

What about one of these guys:




I reckon either of them would be capable acting wise, would be good to see one of them take on a role like this too.

WatchWolf

As Steve...




OR





With Fincher as directing.

krudler

WatchWolf wrote: »

As Steve...




OR





With Fincher as directing.

Fiennes is 50, how could he play a younger Jobs?

WatchWolf

Good point... What about Norton?

Sad Professor

Norton could definitely do it, but isn't he in his 40s now? They need someone younger. The 1975-85 period when Jobs was in his 20s will take up at least half the running time of any movie that is made about him. It's easier to make someone look older than younger.

I know a lot of people probably only became familiar with Jobs in recent years and think of him as the iPod/iPhone/iWhatever guy, but Jobs and Apple also kick-started the personal computer revolution. Even if he had never returned Apple in the 90s, he would still have left his mark.

WatchWolf

Yeah, I know what you mean. They could use CGI to de-age him, but it probably wouldn't work...

Maybe Andrew Garfield? It's hard to think of some legitimately good young actors who could pull the role off.

Isard

Never been interested in Jobs but my boyfriend made me watch Pirates of Silicon Valley and - oh wonder! - I was really fascinated. By the film, not Jobs So I think I saw enough of Jobs and don't want another film...

grames_bond

Joseph Gordon Levitt could do a good job (pun not intended) i think!

You know what? Ashton Kutcher could work! I mean the guy can act when he wants to - look at the Butterfly Effect for instance.

JP Liz V1

Jim Sturgess or Emile Hirsch both capable actors for the role and both kinda look like him imo

WatchWolf

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what? Ashton Kutcher could work! I mean the guy can act when he wants to - look at the Butterfly Effect for instance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yAfajTt9x8

jArgHA

How about Antonio Banderas or Sylvester Stallone?

(hehe only messing I'm trying to think of examples of worst possible casting choices..)

Oafley Jones

jArgHA wrote: »

How about Antonio Banderas or Sylvester Stallone?

(hehe only messing I'm trying to think of examples of worst possible casting choices..)

Todd Haynes directing with CCH Pounder as older jobs. Peter Dinklage for the 80s-early 90s and a cgi carrot for his college years. That's how you do a bio.

Zillah

jArgHA wrote: »

Antonio Banderas

Sure why not? They cast him to play a character that was supposed to be a strawberry blonde 16 year old in Interview with the Vampire.

The Social Network is one of my favourite films of the last few years, if they get Fincher on board for this I am excited.

Also please get Trent Reznor and whoever the hell did the casting!

+1 for ending the film before he gets cancer too.
EDIT:
OH, also, better get Aaron Sorkin to write the screenplay too!

yammycat

I'd be cool with this, as long as it finished with his i-coffin being lowered 6 feet under

Syferus

Don't know about all The Social Network buzz on it, Jobs life story is very, very different to Zukerberg's. The biggest fear would be that it'd be too fawning, Jobs was quite an unsavoury character at times and that'll need to be reflected honestly.

And no way should the film end before he got cancer, if it's going to be a biopic it needs to be true to the story it's based on and no some sort of Lifetime film that tries to edit his life into something ending with untrue triumph - this is a man who resolutely refused traditional cancer care before it became too late and in his battle alone there's a reflection of the man's ego, his brilliance in still guiding a company to ever greater heights throughout that ordeal, it's as poetic and as a complete capstone to who he was and his life's work as you could find in any piece of fiction.

Sad Professor

I don't think it should really be a biopic though. Fawning or not, unless the person is some kind of Charles Foster Kane or Shakespearian-type character, their life stories are better suited to television. Films that try and condense a person's life down into a 2-3 hour film are usually very boring. J Edgar and The Iron Lady are recent examples of this. It needs to be more like The Social Network, which was about the formation of Facebook rather than a biopic of Mark Zuckerberg. That's why I think the focus needs to be on Apple.

Isaacson's book is crap btw. In part because he focuses too much on Jobs and his life story rather than on what he actually did, which Isaacson has a very poor grasp of. There are so many stupid mistakes in the book that I was tempted to stop reading a few times.

Mal-Adjusted

do not want.

If i wanted to go see a film about the life story of an insufferable asshole, i'd just go watch Dawg.

Syferus

I think there's plenty of scope in Jobs life for a wonderful biopic, and I'd disagree that The Social Network can be divorced from being a 'biopic', it was beautifully constructed but at its core it's about how a man (boy?) who fills needs and flaws in himself with work and technology and what that leads to. Even Eduardo's and Parker's arcs centre on how they reflect aspects of Zuckerberg's character and 'growth'. Facebook and its invention are very clearly secondary in The Social Network, they all become appendages to Zuckerberg himself and the commentary on the service in general is in the form of how it effects his life.

Biopic doesn't need to be a dirty word in film, even if Jobs' life would be better served by a HBO mini-series or something of that ilk.

JoeA3

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't think it should really be a biopic though. Fawning or not, unless the person is some kind of Charles Foster Kane or Shakespearian-type character, their life stories are better suited to television. Films that try and condense a person's life down into a 2-3 hour film are usually very boring. J Edgar and The Iron Lady are recent examples of this. It needs to be more like The Social Network, which was about the formation of Facebook rather than a biopic of Mark Zuckerberg. That's why I think the focus needs to be on Apple.

Isaacson's book is crap btw. In part because he focuses too much on Jobs and his life story rather than on what he actually did, which Isaacson has a very poor grasp of. There are so many stupid mistakes in the book that I was tempted to stop reading a few times.

I've just finished reading it too. Any specific examples of the mistakes you mention? Can't say anything jumped out at me, but then again I didn't know a huge amount about his background before reading it.

Sad Professor

JoeA3 wrote: »

I've just finished reading it too. Any specific examples of the mistakes you mention? Can't say anything jumped out at me, but then again I didn't know a huge amount about his background before reading it.

There's a lot of silly technical mistakes that suggest Isaacson doesn't know much about computers. He thinks iPhoto was Apple's answer to Adobe Photoshop, which is hilarious and means Isaacson has obviously never used either. He also focuses too much on the hardware at the expense of software. Mac OS X gets a few pages and he almost totally ignores the importance of NeXT. You can't talk about how Jobs was a great innovator and not talk about the software, especially since Jobs is on record as saying software was Apple's greatest strength.

It's a reasonably decent introduction to Jobs for those unfamiliar with him, but Isaacson doesn't understand the technology and as a result isn't able to properly assess Jobs's achievements.

D'Agger

Sad Professor wrote: »

It's a reasonably decent introduction to Jobs for those unfamiliar with him, but Isaacson doesn't understand the technology and as a result isn't able to properly assess Jobs's achievements.

This would be my fear also - you need a director who knows his/her tech otherwise it's not going to go very far imo

Oafley Jones

PaulieC wrote: »

This would be my fear also - you need a director who knows his/her tech otherwise it's not going to go very far imo

This is like saying the director of The Social Network needed solid understanding of PHP to make a good movie.

aidan_walsh

JoeA3 wrote: »

I've just finished reading it too. Any specific examples of the mistakes you mention? Can't say anything jumped out at me, but then again I didn't know a huge amount about his background before reading it.

Three whole hours of them in podcast form.

D'Agger

Oafley Jones wrote: »

This is like saying the director of The Social Network needed solid understanding of PHP to make a good movie.

No it's not and if you believe that's what I was suggesting you're wrong...

In order to make this movie good it has to be spot on - when I say know their tech I meant - the history behind Jobs, Apple - pretty much the history of the industry seeing as, for quite some time, Jobs and Gates were the two monarchs of the indusrty.

If they make mistakes they're going to get nailed on it so, imo, the movie hinges on the directors/scriptwriters understanding of Jobs, Apple their combined history

Oafley Jones

PaulieC wrote: »

No it's not and if you believe that's what I was suggesting you're wrong...

In order to make this movie good it has to be spot on - when I say know their tech I meant - the history behind Jobs, Apple - pretty much the history of the industry seeing as, for quite some time, Jobs and Gates were the two monarchs of the indusrty.

If they make mistakes they're going to get nailed on it so, imo, the movie hinges on the directors/scriptwriters understanding of Jobs, Apple their combined history

It was a poor example I admit. I still think a lot of people are expecting some sort of Pirates of the Silicon Valley 2.0. That would be the least interesting movie I could imagine given what we now know of an individual as complicated as Jobs, the meat and potatoes of the story stems from his personal relationships and his own unique perspective of how the world works, the tech industry forming just a backdrop.

D'Agger

Oafley Jones wrote: »

It was a poor example I admit. I still think a lot of people are expecting some sort of Pirates of the Silicon Valley 2.0. That would be the least interesting movie I could imagine given what we now know of an individual as complicated as Jobs, the meat and potatoes of the story stems from his personal relationships and his own unique perspective of how the world works, the tech industry forming just a backdrop.

I wouldn't want a 2.0 of that movie either tbh - there's alot to jobs - I saw a biography on him the other day that was huge - and it's understandable.

The guy achieved a huge amount in such a short life - trying to put that into a 2 hour -or-so movie will be difficult.

With the social network it's different - Zuckerberg isn't the force Jobs was, he's also still alive so there's the feeling that if Jobs is to be remembered on the silver screen it needs to be done well - which is why I'm hoping Kutcher pulls it out of the bag - he is capable imo.

Sad Professor

Personally I'd be quite happy with a film that covered the same territory as Pirates of Silicon Valley, albeit with a broader chronological focus. My fear with a biopic is that it will spread the focus of the film too thin. Pixar, NeXT, cancer battles, being a bad father, being an a—hole, etc. I don't care about Jobs's domestic life or his childhood. A screenwriter would feel the need to create some sort of arc to his life that didn't exist. A film should tell a story. The problem is people's lives don't usually make for great stories without a lot of creative license.

And I disagree with Syferus that TSN is a biopic. What does the film have to say about Zuckerberg's life beyond his role in the formation of Facebook? Very little. They gave him a fictional girlfriend and that was it. It may be a character study in which Zuckerberg is the main character, but it doesn't deal enough with his actual life to be a considered a biopic IMO. The book the film was based on certainly wasn't a biography of him either.

JP Liz V1

Source

Aaron Sorkin has officially signed on to adapt Steve Jobs, Walter Isaacson’s biography of the late Apple co-founder, Sony Pictures

Sad Professor

Great news. Now if they could just get Fincher...

WatchWolf

Fantastic. Aaron Sorkin is a great writer. Really witty and intelligent.