The new Steve Jobs movie has bombed at the box office — but director Danny Boyle thinks the failure has nothing to do with the movie he made, but rather the decision to open it nationally too quickly.
“We did brilliantly the first two weekends,” he said. “Then [the studio] went too wide too soon, and that’s a mistake. But hindsight experts are always around on Monday mornings.”
Boyle says that, as a filmmaker, “You try and make complex films, not simplistic films.” He also praises the movie’s actors, saying that:
“I’ve been very lucky to be involved with a lot of very good performances over the years, and this is on a different planet, I think. I mean Fassbender and Winslet — and Seth Rogan is just extraordinary in his playing [Steve] Wozniak — so yes, I’m very, very proud to be associated with them.”
Despite its impressive cast, positive early reviews, and the massive $130,250 per screen it made in its limited release, Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin’s Steve Jobs has barely earned more than the critically-panned 2013 movie Jobs, starring Ashton Kutcher (also known as Dude, Where’s My License Plate?).
In a sense, I can completely understand Boyle’s frustration — although I don’t know if the movie’s failure can be blamed entirely on opening nationally too soon.
Since the early positive reviews, there was plenty of negative press surrounding the movie and its “liberties” with the truth. It’s also unrealistic to base a movie’s national box office on the markets of New York and Los Angeles — a bit like assuming your startup idea is going to work in Anytown, U.S.A., because some engineers in Silicon Valley told you it was a neat idea.
Maybe the movie will get a second wave of publicity if it does well during awards season?
Source: Associated Press
Luke Dormehl is a U.K.-based journalist and author, with a background working in documentary film for Channel 4 and the BBC. He is the author of The Apple Revolution and The Formula: How Algorithms Solve All Our Problems … and Create More, both published by Penguin/Random House. His tech writing has also appeared in Wired, Fast Company, Techmeme and other publications.
13 responses to “Steve Jobs director lashes out at ‘hindsight experts’”
I think it was a miscalculation of consumer interest. 60 million iPhone sales a quarter doesn’t necessarily translate to a general populous that wants to see a fictionalized account of a real person. Some of the people who knew him thought he was a visionary and some thought he was an asshole, and they saw it opening weekend. However, the rest of the 350 million or so don’t care either way. I know for me it was easy, another viewing of The Martian with my son won hands down.
I get the sense that in the US, the proverbial man on the street (as opposed to the typical tech blog reader) has positive feelings for Steve Jobs like they do for Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, and other historical figures that embody the American self-image of optimism, ingenuity and success through hard honest work. They don’t like hearing, and worse, watching, things that tear down these iconic figures, especially if it is deemed to be done in an inaccurate, unfair, and, as Tim Cook said, opportunistic way. Now you add close friends and the widow of the man himself objecting to how the mean on-screen portrayal was nothing like the real person they knew, then you have a recipe for a box-office disaster.
You want to make a movie about Steve Jobs that people will watch? You better make it a celebration not a dermatological examination for warts and blemishes.
I think Aaron Sorkin thought because of the success of The Social Network, he can use the same approach with another Steve Jobs, another tech industry figure. But Zuckerberg’s popular image then was probably neutral to negative while Jobs’ is neutral to positive. The movie tipped over from challenging people’s sensibilities to offending them.
I don’t think that’s the issue at all. Fundamentally, the movie was called “Steve Jobs”, but was largely a work of fiction. I believe the movie would have been better received if both the name of the movie was changed along with the names of the characters. It’s okay to loosely resemble a Steve Jobs like character that way. However, if you’re going to call the move “Steve Jobs”, it should be fairly accurate. A good story shares the good with the bad. There is no need to hide the bad in any character. However, it should be accurate. It wasn’t. The movie was therefore panned and rightfully so.
Why did it do poorly in the box office? Word of mouth and bad reviews… it’s that simple.
Every biopic is a fiction. In fact every person that reaches this stature is a fiction of fandom.
Yes, but if you stray too far from the truth it just becomes a joke. It’s okay to have works of fiction, but if you’re going to put out a film like this, don’t use the real names. People will know who the movie is “loosely” based on. Think of Citzen Kane as the example of how that should be done.
I see. I agree.
I believe this movie was a hit job. To take the magic out of Apple while Microsoft attempts it reboot.
I’m not big on conspiracy theories, nor am I to venture a guess behind the intention of the film. Nonetheless, I recall hearing an anecdotal story on one of the podcasts I listen to where someone saw the movie and overheard two girls sitting behind them claim they were going to switch to Android based on the type of father Steve Jobs was, etc. While that may be an isolated incident and clearly, Steve Jobs was no saint, movies like this that essentially vilify real people for the sake of movie drama can have real impacts. To your point, there may be something to your suggestion of this movie intentionally being a hit job.
One can never
A few years ago I noticed DARK KNIGHT RISES, MAN OF STEEL, and TREK INTO DARKNESS basically had the exact same plot.
If you speak ‘generally’ about all three —
1. Three heroes needed approval from the police and/or military. I remember when heroes fought by themselves, but now movies (aimed at teenagers) depict the military AS heroic as heroes.
2. Each film presented a man who was fighting to save his people. A Freedom Fighter Of The People, if you will. YET each film also vilified said individual as a liar and villain.
3. When Snowden emerged — as a Freedom Fighter of the People — the Gov/military painted him the same way these movies do.
COINCIDENCE? Menothinkso.
When you look at these films from a distance you realize they’re military recruitment films. They are the grandchildren of TOP GUN.
Go to YouTube and search for ‘screenplayhouse’ and ‘iSpy’ to see this same topic via a short satire.
I hope it makes you smile.
” get the sense that in the US, the proverbial man on the street (as opposed to the typical tech blog reader) has positive feelings for Steve Jobs like they do for Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, and other historical figures that embody the American self-image of optimism, ingenuity and self-made success through hard honest work”
That could not be further from the truth. Jobs is no where near that category. He and Gates are, hand in hand, some of the most brilliant marketers and unscrupulous businessman that have ever walked the planet. Their level of personal genius in the inventions they sold equate to noise.
All you had to do was look in the numerous Apple related blog forums to see just how many people didn’t want to see this movie. Try starting there.
“…director Danny Boyle thinks the failure has nothing to do with the movie he made, but rather the decision to open it nationally too quickly.”
Ahhh, so •that’s• the reason. Riiiiight.
They made a movie about Steve Jobs starring an actor who looks nothing like Steve Jobs. Of course it was a flop.
I don’t understand this stupid kind of thinking. Why would you want to hold back your product from wide release? What are you waiting on? I think the truth is a combination of things. First, maybe there was no real interest in the movie among movie goers, except in a few places. Second, it’s well known that this movie stretched the truth. I don’t mind a few minor changes, but accusing Apple of stealing the graphical user interface is downright criminal. Lastly… and this is why I refuse to go see this movie… People who knew Steve Jobs personally think the movie is bad, opportunistic, etc. Why would Universal even want to make a movie like that knowing full well that Steve’s closest friends and his wife hate it?