New York Times tech writer Nick Bilton has taken aim at Silicon Valley in his latest column — attacking it for helping to bring down Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin’s Steve Jobs biopic, which so far has earned just $18 million at the box office in its first seven weeks.
Although Bilton doesn’t place all the blame for the box office bomb at the feet of the tech industry (he also suggests that Jobs overload and bad timing may have had something to do with it), he does take issue with the way that the tech industry, “relished in, and contributed to, the film’s demise.”
The article notes that, even before Steve Jobs had been released wide, tech investor Ron Conway had, “emailed prominent people in the industry and implored them not to support the film because he thought it portrayed Mr. Jobs in a disrespectful and unflattering light.” Conway reportedly suggested wording for tweets they could use to voice their displeasure.
Shortly after, superstar investor Marc Andreessen tweeted that, “The Steve Jobs ‘biopic’ is deliberately fabricated nonsense.” After this, others including Walt Mossberg, Steven Levy, and others wrote that the movie didn’t portray the Steve Jobs they were familiar with.
Bilton writes that:
“It felt like a contest among high school classmates vying to be the football captain’s best friend.
Here’s the thing: They didn’t know Steve Jobs. None of us did. I don’t care if you had a sleepover party at his house once a week while you watched rom-coms and did each other’s nails. Or if he granted you a 15-second interview after one of his product introductions. The reality is, Steve Jobs was trying to sell things, and he was an absolute master at using the media to do that.”
It’s tough to work out exactly why Bilton is so upset about the whole situation, unless it’s in some way related to Hollywood suddenly becoming reticent about adapting tech books — like his own Hatching Twitter — for the screen.
As a huge Sorkin fan I was sad to see one of his movies bomb as hard as it did — particularly considering how excited I was about this movie — but I have to question the degree to which a harsh review from Walt Mossberg can derail a movie, at a time when even professional film critics have less of an impact than arguably any other time in cinema history.
As far as criticizing writers like Steven Levy, there was (from everything I’ve heard, based on interviewing hundreds of people who worked with Steve Jobs over the years) a massive difference between the access one got to Steve early in his career, and the more controlled access he allowed during his last decade.
If Levy — who knew Jobs during the early days when he was far more accessible — felt that the Steve Jobs movie didn’t properly portray Jobs during this exact time, I think it’s worth taking the criticism seriously.
Why do you think the Steve Jobs movie ultimately failed to make money? Leave your comments below.
Source: NYT
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.
31 responses to “Silicon Valley accused of destroying Steve Jobs movie”
Who freaking cares. I was sick of hearing about this movie way before it was ever released. It seemed to be the crap that got reported about on every blog when it was a slow news day. Which seemed to be every day. It flopped. So what. It’s like a bad uncle that won’t go away. Can we just move on?
If you don’t care, why bother posting here?
Ah – that’s right; you’re smarter than all the rest of us.
Forgive me Kel if you were offended. It’s rather simple actually. You see…I was commenting about the story that was posted above. And the ridiculous amount of press that a ridiculous movie has received. And this is the comments section related to that story. It doesn’t make me “smarter.” And it may make me opinionated. But you have proven that intelligence is, most certainly, relative.
No, I think you misunderstand again. It doesn’t matter if you consider any part of it “ridiculous”, as you’re not speaking for anyone here aside from yourself. Which begs the question – why post? You’re not commenting about the movie – in which millions was spent and lost – aside from insinuating that the entire escapade is beneath you. So why bother? Move on, yourself.
You are, in the end, merely a troll. You offer no examination of the article, no analysis of the events, no input on the subject – you offer nothing to the dialog here. You use the anonymity of chat as a bully pulpit, and spout nonsense about how we’re boring you and ruining your day.
So, again I ask – why did you even bother?
Unless you enjoy this kind of interaction, and then it all makes sense.
My dear friend…you are a truly twisted individual. I offered my opinion. Just as many did on this forum. Just because you don’t like or agree with it doesn’t mean it’s anything less than you amazing heroic worship of all things apple. Secondly, the forums are anonymous by design. I didn’t design them. So your beef is with the web developer. Finally, i agree with about 1 thing: there is definitely a troll among us. Take your twisted sense of morality and go play somewhere else. No one here is impressed. Or cares. An ass is simply an ass…it stinks. Perhaps you should invest in some deodorant before you return.
Ah, so you resort now to epithets and insults. Still nothing aside from your opinion – we’re done, and we all know enough now.
As I pointed out before… Job’s personal life was secretive at best…as it should have been. He was a public speaker…a brilliant one with a gift of gab second to none. However just like other public speakers…(Coven for example) the personal life and underlying events that bring a product to life aren’t something the public really cares about.
Try this… tell your signoificant other about the big project you work on and watch them fall asleep before the end of the 2nd sentence.
Jobs was (and still is) admired because he polarized his audience. Some loved his personality, some hated him but most didn’t even know him at all. Let’s keep Hollywood on what they do best (some times)… stories that happened a long long time ago, in a distant galaxy…
I had one of the first Macs, a 128K which I bought used and upgraded to 512K. Fanboy ever since. With the possible exception of my wife, Steve was the most important person in my life. I wanted to go, as I have read every book and every article ever written about him. But when nearly everyone who knew him refused to go, I honored their judgment.
This film took a a complex, interesting guy and boiled him down to a two-dimensional caricature in a three act play with fictionalized dialog.
I found Walter Mossberg’s take on the movie to be dead on.
Can only speak on the material – Having read the Isaacson book and then, months later, the Levy book, my impression is the latter is the better-rounded, more honest tome. That Steve could be a prick is clear in both, no punches spared in either book, but the Isaacson book seemed intent on making a polarizing character out of Jobs, and not a real person. Even if Steve approved, no one would have worked for him under were he such a unrelenting tyrant. That Sorkin used this to create an even greater mythic archetype to tell his tale – I’m sure that distanced many people who would have considered seeing it.
The movie debuts this week in the Netherlands and as I’m a Sorkin dork, I’ll probably go see it – and reserve judgement until then.
Interesting article and agree, why does Bilton even care? (I loved Hatching Twitter too- great read) I thought the movie was blah. Take away the things the folks who knew the stories were stretched or fabricated going in, and you had a movie with a director that people like and hoped would do well. But the product on the screen simply did not cut it.
Yeah, I’ve got absolutely nothing against Bilton. Great writer and Hatching Twitter was a brilliant book.
Regardless of what people thought about his a**holery in his private life, Steve Jobs is an American icon thought of by the public with the same level of affection or admiration as a Thomas Edison or Henry Ford. That is, as an embodiment of the American innovative, can-do spirit. A film maker who dares bring down such an icon to the status of “mere human”, especially if it is in a manner that is perceived as unfair, does so to his film’s grave peril.
It’s a boring story. Can’t believe the film companies can’t see that it’s simply a yawn-fest tale. “Tech CEO does some stuff, says some stuff”… Zzzzz I’m asleep just thinking about it. We needed another Jobs movie like we needed a kick in the head.
Who gives a damn.? We will all see if it’s a quality movie in years to come… Cult classic or forgotten trash. Either way it is a work of fiction – not a documentary. People should go in expecting a drama – anything more and you are looking for frustration.
Also – Steve is dead, his legacy is steadfast and he probably would tell everyone that he doesn’t need anyone protecting him. Let the man be criticized. He isn’t the savior. He was just a really great man in his chosen field, full of flaws and beautiful unique character. I’ve known people for twenty years who probably don’t know the first thing about who I really am… Nor should they.
1. It wasn’t a movie that needed to be made.
2. It’s a Netflix movie.
3. If you’re going to spend $10-$15 on a movie, it’s not going to be this.
4. People were/are sick of hearing about it.
5. Michael Fassbender doesn’t look anything like Steve Jobs.
6. The producers’ arrogance is ridiculous and laughable.
Speaking as someone who actually saw the movie, I thought it was a great movie. Very dramatic. It really had you on the edge of your seat. Did it portray things exactly how they really went down? No, not exactly. But, who cares? Its supposed to be entertainment, and Steve Jobs was a man, not a god. Just enjoy the movie and leave it at that. There should be no politics here.
Many, many people actually do care that Steve’s legacy is portrayed *fairly* – that’s, I think, a very large portion of why people dismissed this film outright; it didn’t honestly portray the person *or* the events.
God knows you can’t say anything negative about that other God Steve Jobs!
Because he (and he alone, I’m sure) created the iPod and iPhone he can do no wrong and should be put right up there with Nelson Mandela and Mother Teresa. Maybe Apple can put out their own movie that portrays Jobs as the warm, benevolent, caring human being that he was. Can’t let abandoning your daughter and the fact that he gave zero back in philanthropy get in the way, right?
Shame on the movie industry for telling the truth!
he didn’t abandon his daughter – and he gave the world more than any “philantropist” ever did.
No, “he” didn’t give the world the computer and ipod and iphone – the ENGINEERS did it.
Can we all please stop making this guy out to be a god?
sure Le Corbusier also didn’t give the world any amazing architecture. the construction workers did.
Um, Steve Jobs was not an architect, how can you possibly compare him to such a person?
He was lousy at design at Atari and figured out how to get Woz and others to do all the work.
What Jobs did was make demands of what he wanted to see, and it got done thru either a) intimidation, or b) inspirational motivation, depending on how you look at it. People have said he stole others ideas within Apple and didn’t give credit.
Yeah, he got a lot of sh*t done. But it wasn’t through brilliant engineering design.
Casting someone in-no-way resembling Steve Jobs didn’t help. I like Michael Fassbender, but just no. The lead-singer of Vampire Weekend or John McEnroe, maybe.
I’ve see the movie and it’s a good film…the visuals, dialogue, mise-en-scène are used to punctuate mood, motivation, and character.
But this is in service to a narrative and reality that is false as anyone with knowledge of the history and politics of Apple knows…a great example is the confrontation between jobs and Wozniak at jobs return to apple keynote.
I think the more interesting story is how Hollywood, and in particular its power players, view themselves vis-à-vis jobs and his accomplishments. Hollywood loves to see itself as a force that influences and molds society with its creativity, artistry, and genius. But it’s a business just like Apple with product to sell and balance sheets to shore up and mostly it just makes Transformer movies and reality TV shows which are as impactful as a fart in church;—noticed but quickly forgotten.
But jobs and Apple actually changed the world with its iPods, iPads, iPhones and now Apple Watch, and this is the reality that Hollywood wanted to tarnish and skew with the “he can’t be a great man cause he wasn’t nice to some people” portrayal of jobs in the film.
Is it intellectually honest to dismiss, minimize these achievements because Jobs displayed human character flaws?
The real hubris belong to the filmmakers.
It failed because society has transitioned fully to the era of ‘personality ethics’ versus the era of ‘character ethics’ going back to this country’s founding. We excuse misdeeds if there is some tangible benefit to us all, even the notion that we too could act a certain way to reach success. The common belief now is that to make it big, you need to be an asshole to a certain degree. It’s acceptable. This reflects the increasing narcissism in society, the decreasing concern for others and the manner in which we interact with others. The film was a trial on Jobs’ character and conduct. The jury–the populace who went to the film and dismissed going all voted. The verdict? Jobs was acquitted. That’s what the movie flopping means.
It bombed because it was not about Steve Jobs.
Pure and simple: the movie failed because it’s not a good movie.
Who wants to pay $15-20 to see this in a cinema today, with no pause or rewind? Most of us are waiting for the video.
The problem is that when people want to see stuff about Steve Jobs it’s because they’re interested in knowing who he was. When you admit that nothing in your movie actually happened, provides no insight into him, and isn’t really about him. Then why would fans of the man go see it? Especially when it’s panned by most people who knew him? He hasn’t been dead long enough for this sort of movie to not hurt people close to him, and I think a lot of people didn’t want to spit on a man’s memory while those who loved him are still alive.
i think it flopped because Michael Fassbender looks nothing like Steve Jobs – but almost exactly like John Sculley. in fact when i first saw the trailer i didn’t know that – and it took me time to realize that the actor depicts Jobs and not Sculley.
it’s like watching a movie about Beatles where Paul McCartney looks exactly like Lennon.
i read they considered Tom Cruise… i think that could work out really nicely.