Was Michael Fassbender’s casting in ‘Steve Jobs’ the reason why it flopped?


Nearly all of the critics liked Steve Jobs. The critics believe that Michael Fassbender is now one of the leading contenders for an Oscar nomination for playing Jobs, and other possible nominations could go to Kate Winslet and Seth Rogen. I believe that if there’s money going into an Oscar campaign, it will probably be for Fassbender, and possibly Aaron Sorkin for the screenplay.

Unfortunately, when Steve Jobs had its wider release this past weekend, it sort of bombed at the box office. While the film only cost $30 million to make (not including promotional/ad costs), people are still worried. The opening weekend box office? $7.3 million. They were hoping for just shy of $20 million, although I’m not sure why. This film was always going to be a slow-burner meant for people who enjoy awards-baity performances. It was never going to be a huge financial success. Variety noted: “Steve Jobs was too brainy, too cold, and too expensive to make it a success. Moreover, Michael Fassbender, the electrifying Irish actor who replaced Bale as Jobs, lacks the drawing power to open the picture.” Ouch. Variety wrote that in a piece analyzing whether the crappy box office will affect Fassbender’s shot at an Oscar nomination – you can read the full Variety piece here. Basically, they’re hoping that if the film gets nominated for some awards, it will do better at the box office, and if it does better at the box office, it will get nominated for more awards. It’s like a snake eating its tail! Variety also writes:

Few would fault Fassbender’s performance, but his casting may have been disastrous from a commercial standpoint. An Oscar nominee with a series of compelling turns in the likes of “Shame” and “12 Years a Slave,” Fassbender has yet to establish himself as a bankable actor. In fact, a study by Piedmont Media Research found that audiences’ interest in seeing “Steve Jobs” dipped after they found out Fassbender was headlining the drama. Having a DiCaprio or a Robert Downey Jr. in the title role may have broadened “Steve Jobs’” appeal.

[From Variety]

For what it’s worth, I was one of the few who went to see Steve Jobs last weekend and I enjoyed it. Steve Jobs the man was a terrible a—hole to almost everyone around him, but the film itself was good and I thought Fassy was and is deserving of some awards consideration. I thought Winslet did a decent enough job but I actually hope that she doesn’t get nominated for anything. Her accent work was all over the place and she shouldn’t be rewarded for being “brave” enough to wear brown wigs. The script is classic Sorkin, almost by-the-books Sorkin, full of Sorkin-esque dialogue and Sorkin-esque tropes (oh, his relationship with his daughter ends up being significant? Shocking). I did think it was “smart” and I enjoyed the fact that it didn’t feel like they were talking down to the audience.


Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

186 Responses to “Was Michael Fassbender’s casting in ‘Steve Jobs’ the reason why it flopped?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Lindy79 says:

    Meh, I think it’s going more for awards than box office, which come nomination time, it’ll bump it back up in the takings.

    I know I’d prefer to watch movies like this at home rather than in a cinema

    • Caro says:

      This is a big film that released wide, so of course they wanted it to make money.

      It is after all, about the Apple founder. They have to be embarrassed.

      I was surprised they thought fassbender could bring in the dough. Ashton kutcher would have gotten better box office, plus he actually looked like jobs.

      People can squawk all they want about awards contention, and how that’s what the focus was/is, but then the film itself wasn’t that great. Oscar might throw fassbender a bone, but even that is iffy.

      It was a miss. Though I’ll plan to watch when it comes to Netflix or Amazon. Lol

      • Lindy79 says:

        Em…I wasn’t “squawking”, I have no horse in this race, just an opinion that box office wouldn’t be their sole primary focus, there has also been huge Oscar pushes since before it was released, that’s all.

      • herewego says:

        …and he made fun of Kutcher but Kutcher film made more money or just as much on opening weekend since it was in less theaters….than this one..

        Fassy is not box office even portraying JOBS and Hollywood does want Box office, no matter what they say.

        Yes Fassy may get a nomination but several who were surrounding JOBS during his life, have said the film is not that great.

      • Neah23 says:

        I agree with Caro if it wasn’t about making money they would have left it at a limited release. They thought this was going to be a hit at the box office and it wasn’t.

    • Addison says:

      I very much doubt it. People actually go to see movies based on the subject matter. So a movie about 3 product launches for Steve Jobs products is not appealing. Dramas as a whole do not get the numbers that anything that has action/explosions and such would get.

      If name recognition had anything to do with it, Johnny Depp’s movies would all me making mega money. I predict the Pitt/Jolie movie By the Sea will flop even with two of the biggest stars of today attached to it.

      Steve Jobs is a great movie. I think all of the performances were excellent. I even think Seth Rogen was not bad and I really don’t care for him. Kate Winslet was excellent. Michael Fassbender was incredible along with Jeff Daniels. Their scenes together were excellent. Go see it!

      • herewego says:

        Angelina had one of the biggest hits of the year or last…Maleficent, so she can carry a film.

        Fassy will not get many more leading roles if he can’t carry a film.

      • Esmom says:

        Agree about the subject matter being unappealing (for the big screen). I cannot imagine the average filmgoer being even remotely interested. But I was impressed with the trailer and how appealing they managed to make the story seem, given the subject matter.

      • lucy2 says:

        I agree it’s mostly the subject matter. I kind of feel like most people who were interested in his story read the book about him, which came out shortly after his death, I think. Now, a few years have passed, interest wanes a bit. I like the cast, but don’t feel like it’s one I need to run out and see in the theater.

        herewego, I think Addison’s point is that even big stars don’t guarantee big box office every time. Every true A list movie star out there has had films that completely flopped in recent years, even if they had a big film do well right before or after it.

      • Ally8 says:

        Another website had an interesting re-review of Pirates of Silicon Valley, probably the first film version of the Jobs story. I’m curious to see it. This new one on the other hand… meh. I think Fassbender is perfect, since his onscreen vibe is generally distant/cold/vicious also. It’ll be worth what I eventually ‘pay’ to watch it on Netflix.

        I appreciate the technical enrichment Jobs brought into my life like others’ (I can brag that we were very early Mac/Apple adopters). Enough with the hagiography, though — even though the movie has some critical elements apparently, Sorkin like most successful modern writer/directors is all about the “wasn’t he a wonderful a-hole?” angle.

        Btw, my favorite “wasn’t he a wonderful a-hole?” movie is All That Jazz, wherein Bob Fosse paints his own glamorous yet unflinching autobiographical portrait. Highly recommend. Also Roy Scheider. Love Roy Scheider.

    • sarah says:

      I can’t really figure out why this flopped..
      The casting is fine, I don’t think this is fassbenders fault, he’s one of the reasons I wanted to see it…
      I am biased when it comes to aaron sorkin because I love him, loved the newsroom, loved social network, and he went to Syracuse.
      A lot of news outlet’s ran pieces about jobs before the film came out, that might have had something to do with it.. also some completely unfair/harsh reviews that had more to do with the critics dislike for Sorkin than the actual film

      • herewego says:

        Kutcher somewhere smiling.

      • Sarah (another one) says:

        Except Kutcher’s film didn’t do so well at the box office either. As for RDJ or Leo as Jobs – no. Just no. RDJ is one of those actors in danger of playing the same character over and over. He was kind of a morose Tony Stark in The Judge, for example. And Leo? I’m just over him. If Jobs were a bloated, model f-er with a baby face, perhaps. I saw the movie and it was good. Very well done. Fassbender was very good, IMO. People need to remember that there are a ton of movies that come out this time of year. Also, the Hanks movie was another option for movie drama fans.

      • Lucrezia says:

        I think it’s simply the wrong time for a biopic on Jobs.

        His story was thoroughly hashed over during his illness and after he passed away. So it’s old news, but it’s not old enough to have been forgotten and seem “new” again.

        It might’ve worked in the late 90’s or early 00’s (spun as an expose on a then-powerful figure). It might’ve worked in 2050, as a historical story. But 2015 is the wrong time.

      • nic919 says:

        As someone stated earlier, this movie will be up for awards and will get a boost from that come Oscar time. I thought it was weird to open it in October when Fall blockbusters are happening, because this should be more of a Christmas time kind of film as an alternative to the Star Wars / Hunger Games movie goers.

    • SnarkySnarkers says:

      Didn’t Ashton Kutcher already make this movie? Maybe people are sick of Steve Jobs movies?

    • decloo says:

      Maybe I’m oversimplifying but who wants to go see a movie about some guy who invented computers?

  2. MonicaQ says:

    Because didn’t we JUST have a Steve Jobs movie not too long ago? Who deserves 2 movies inside of 8 years? Also I’m vehemently anti-Apple so maybe that has something to do with it *cough*.

    • LAK says:

      Movie ideas always come in multiples. It’s a race to release first. Usually the first one out of the gate wins in monetary terms or in accolades or in derision irrespective of whether it’s deserved. It’s happened so many times it’s a cliché.

    • Caro says:

      Ha. Me too. I love my Sammy.

    • V4Real says:

      It flopped because the audience just wasn’t interested. I don’t think it’s fair to blame Michael. Just like it isn’t fair to blame Tom Hiddleston for Crimson Peak flopping. If the movie going audience isn’t interested it isn’t going to do well no matter what celeb they cast in it.

      Take Cruise for example. Some of his previous films didn’t fair so well but the latest Mission Impossible did quite well.

      • GiGi says:

        I agree. I love Apple products & Fassy, too, but have 0 interest in watching a movie about Steve Jobs.

      • herewego says:

        Put Cruise in this JOBS film and it would have made BANK. IMO
        Even with bad reviews.

        Fassy and Hiddleston are NOT Box office, except to fans. These two guys just are not box office.

      • WinnieCoopersMom says:

        @herewego – I agree if Cruise had played Jobs, it would have made bank. That comes down to name recognition. Cruise ( along with Leo and RDJ) is a household name across all generations and Fassbender is not. If producers want a movie to sell, they have to use a big name. Fassy just isnt there yet. His competitors have 10x the titles under their belt as he does, and cost more. Producers get what they pay for and shouldn’t be that shocked about the outcome.

      • V4Real says:

        I have to disagree. As much as I love RDJ “The Judge” didn’t do so well. I think only about 13 million opening weekend. Cruise’s Rock of Ages a bit over 14 million opening weekend. Edge of tomorrow about 28 mill opening weekend (definitely not good for a budget that was over 170 million. Oblivion faired better with 37 million for their opener but it definitely wasn’t a slam dunk for it’s 120 million budget. Jack Reacher 15 million dollar opener wasn’t that great. Good thing the budget was only about 57 million. Rogue Nation made 55 million on it’s opening weekend which was pretty good. This proves that it doesn’t matter the name behind it; if the audience isn’t interested in a particular film they are not going to see it no matter who they cast.

        Look at Johnny Depp. Lately he seems to only fair well with the Pirate Movies.

      • Jane says:

        @V4Real Johnny Depp’s latest R rated gangster movie fared very well.

    • LadyMTL says:

      I’m not vehemently anti-Apple (lol) but I’m not a huge fan either…though I do love me some Fassbender. 😛 I think the movie underperformed because the studios and etc overestimated how much people like us care about Steve Jobs. It might be a good movie with very good acting but if I don’t give a hoot about the subject matter, I’m not going shell out $$ to see it.

    • Bettyrose says:

      Too many Jobs movies. I’m just not interested in this one. But why are you anti-Apple? Just curious.

      • MonicaQ says:

        1) Their human rights record in China is atrocious, 2) I can’t stand their marketing– “Look at all the pretty colors! Let’s tell you nothing about the product though but look at people dancing and having fun don’t you want to have fun buy an iPhone :3” I’m all for consumerism to an extent but it’s so blatant in that case it makes my stomach turn. 3) On top of the fact they come out with features Android’s had since the beginning (e.g. Swype) and suddenly “SO INNOVATIVE!!1!!”. 4) I was forced to use Apple in design school. 5) Proprietary parts and software also irks me too though it does on a coding level for my job (Safari is a mess, having to work around in it on a base code level is enough to make me drink) so I wouldn’t expect normal people to care about that though. 6) the screen cracks all the time–I’ve had my Samsung for almost 3 years and nothing’s happened to it and I otter box protect it. 7) Them putting out “new” phones where they just change the camera and expect you to shell out $500 for it. 8) On a purely personal level, I despise the iPhone interface and my mother in law owns one LOL. 9) I play video games and having to Box up to play them is annoying on Mac. I only did it once.

      • Algernon says:

        @ MonicaQ

        I co-sign everything you’re saying. I loathe Apple for all the same reasons (well, except the MIL one). That said, I did really enjoy Steve Jobs: The Movie. It’s really good.

      • Bettyrose says:

        MonicaQ , I agree with everything you’re saying, as well. Working in education, I’ve often spoken out against iCult when more affordable (if less trendy) products are available, but it’s an uphill battle convincing students their loans shouldn’t be wasted on mobile devices that are literally 3X the price of comparable Android devices.

      • Carmen says:

        Well, I love both my Mac and my iPad. OTOH, I’m sticking with my Samsung phone. I’ve had it for two and a half years now and nary a problem with it. Also, it seems like Apple is trying to crush the competition and that really bugs the hell out of me.

    • manda says:

      Yes! There was just a jobs movie–that no one went to see. Maybe the problem is, who really cares about his life story? So he was a success, so what? Do I want to see a movie about Lee Iacocoa? Or Bill Gates? Not really

      • WinnieCoopersMom says:

        haha good point. The Bill Gates Story? Sounds like a boring Lifetime movie you doze off to on a Sunday afternoon. No thanks.

      • EN says:

        Corporate America is boring, that is why nobody wants to see anything about any of these people.

        Even today there are people who are so much more interesting and influence the world. Why not make a movie about the important figures in the Middle East, their history and how Middle East became what it is?

        And if you go just a little bit in the past , you get a crazy amounts of fascinating stories – people of WWI, WWII, Nazi Germany, Russian revolution, Mexican revolution, Chinese cultural revolution, the story of Ata Turk, Churchill,the scientists, the innovators, the dancers, the writers, the artists, the chess players. So many amazing people, all practically forgotten.

        I remember at some point Jolie wanted to make a movie about Katherine the Great of Russia, what happened to that?

      • Kiki says:

        @En. Or even better, why not make a movie about the Caribbean, we have stories too.

  3. I think the public is just weary of watching biopics about Jobs. There have been several, all crushed-together in rapid succession. If anything, casting Fassbender will get people like me to go see a biopic of Stave Jobs, something I would have avoided in the past.

    Timing is everything. This time of year, audiences want spectacle. We want action, adventure, and big romantic tales of woe to transport us away from the crappy weather; Crimson Peak, Everest, The Martian..these are the things that play in October.

    • Josephine says:

      I agree. I think the story is known-enough and that folks know what they want to know about Jobs. Michael Fassbender looks great in the trailers, but that doesn’t make me want to see the movie.

    • Abigail says:

      The only reason I went to see it was Fassbender. I’m not really interested in Jobs, and I knew it would be very Sorkin-y, and I think (if anything) the script was a weak point. And Universal messed up the release.
      Fassbender was terrific. I also liked Daniels and Rogen. Winslet was okay, but nothing outstanding. All the actors who played Lisa were also good.

    • jugstorecowboy says:

      Hollywood, you want me to see a movie? Make something interesting. Don’t sell reheated crap and be sad I’m not hungry for it.

    • Algernon says:

      “Timing is everything. This time of year, audiences want spectacle. We want action, adventure, and big romantic tales of woe to transport us away from the crappy weather”

      Historically, no. What you’re describing is summer movie season. Fall has been award/drama season for the last 30-40 years. What’s changing is that people no longer want to pay $15 for a drama movie when there is equally quality drama for “free” at home on TV. That’s why superhero movies are so prevalent: because that’s pretty much all people will pay to go see anymore.

      They should have left Steve Jobs in limited release. It was playing very well in art house cinemas in large cities. But Middle America Joe and Jane Public aren’t going to pay for this movie, so they shouldn’t have even tried to go there. I was really surprised when I saw it was going into wide release, because it was so obviously not a mass market movie.

      • Lucrezia says:

        The “summer movie season” concept has always confused me. I agree that it’s definitely summer for big blockbusters, but the argument is just so circular.

        Summer movie season is when the big films are released, because that’s when they do well at the box office, because people go to the cinemas in the summer … because that’s when the big films are released. And all the bad films are dumped in January, because no-one goes to the cinemas then … because there’s nothing worthwhile watching.

        I’m in Oz, and the fact it’s winter here during the American summer box office doesn’t have any effect on how many people go to the movies. Admittedly, it’s not like we’re snowed in or anything, so maybe it’s different. (Perhaps you all hibernate?) I just find it hard to believe there’s *that* much of an effect.

      • Algernon says:

        Summer movie season came about in the 1970s, because of Jaws and Star Wars. Instead of saying, “Maybe those were just good movies that appealed to a lot of people,” executives back then thought, “Oh, people like seeing action stuff during summer.” And now we have summer movie season. I think it’s finally beginning to go away, though, because of overcrowding. Box office is getting stronger in April, August, and September as things push out.

        ETA: Also, yes, our winter weather can have a serious effect on box office. Parts of the country can be snowed in for weekends here and there due to blizzards and ice storms. There’s always at least one really bad winter weekend where weather kills the box office.

    • I think that it is going away too, because of the reasons you say. If I really, REALLY want to see something, I’m probably not going to wait to get to the theater if I see it come up on my iTunes movie list. However, if I’m out for a night in the city, I will probably cough up the dough for a crazy blockbuster or a superhero or something of a spectacle movie like that. I almost enjoy dramas in a more intimate environment, and clearly I’m not the only one. I sort of like that the internet and things like netflix have forces the film and music industries to rethink their game.

  4. Jenns says:

    I’m sure the movie is good. But this is a movie made for home viewing, at least in my opinion. Tickets are expensive, so I’ll save my money for Spectre and Star Wars.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Right. If I don’t see an advantage to seeing a movie on the “big screen,” like special effects, etc., I generally watch it at home. This one wouldn’t draw me to the theatre.

    • SusanneToo says:

      Yep. When my library gets it I can see it for $0.75.

    • Algernon says:

      This is exactly what I just said upthread. Most people don’t want to pay for “talky” movies anymore.

    • WinnieCoopersMom says:

      To this point, I kind of wonder why the studios havent figured out a partnership with OnDemand or another at-home movie service to offer brand new, in-theater releases at home, charging the same price as a ticket ($12-14). I think it would be a win-win, the studios meet their ticket sales and you can watch it without having to leave your couch. The only one missing out on money is the middle man: the theater. I imagine this hasn’t happened yet (I think it’s only a matter of time) because the theater groups (AMC, Cinemark) probably have a lot of power. That’s the only reason i can imagine.

      • EN says:

        I agree with you. Almost the only time I actually go to the movie theater is for the theater broadcasts or events, which you can’t get any other way.
        And may be 1-2 blockbusters. When kids want to watch something they go with dad and I clean the house. ))
        I’d love to watch some of these movies sooner, but the logistics of it are just too complicated. Our lives are very busy.

        I also noticed while passing, that there aren’t that many people in movie theaters and outside of blockbusters, they are lucky to be 30% full.

      • Algernon says:

        @ WinnieCoopersMom

        You are right, it’s because the association of theater owners won’t allow it. The theaters get prickly about carrying movies that are day-and-date on demand (or going straight to Netflix). It’s changing, though.

    • Mark says:

      No movies like this are made for the screen, it’s a movie.

      Just because a movie doesn’t have tonnes of cg and explosions, doesn’t mean it should go straight to HBO

  5. OrigialTessa says:

    Yes. If Christian Bale played Jobs, they would have done 20 million this weekend, maybe more. No one knows who Fassbender is. And, frankly, he looks about as much like Steve jobs as I do. I know it shouldn’t matter, but it does, especially when the subject is such a current media figure.

    • herewego says:


    • Biby says:

      Because Bale open every movie he is in? he had a few flops recently. The movie would have flop with anyone maybe a little less but still flop. The movie idea is unoriginal, people aren’t interested in watching another Jobs movie and universal had a terrible idea to release this wide. They should have left this in limite release but i guess they spend too much money on the budget/marketing and had to get some back. Didn’t work it.

    • Jegede says:

      Outside of the Batman franchise, is there any proof that Bale is a box office draw?

      • EN says:

        > Outside of the Batman franchise, is there any proof that Bale is a box office draw?

        Well, I watch his every movie. There is a statistic of one. Bale is on a completely different level of fame from Fassbender. He has been a big movie star for more than a decade.

  6. tracking says:

    I can’t think of an actor with sufficient draw to bring audiences to this kind of more cerebral biopic. Blaming the Fassbender casting is ridiculous.

    • herewego says:

      But Fassbender will be blamed. He may get a few more chances to open a film, but not many if he can’t bring in money as a lead in films.

      • tracking says:

        If he gets award-season recognition, which many think he will, doubt it will put much of a dent in his career.

  7. paranormalgirl says:

    This weekend was a horrible box office weekend all around.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      That is exactly what indiewire said in an article last week. Box office isn’t as good this month as last Oct. No one is faring well against The Martian (which didn’t outdo Gravity, surprisingly), Goosebumps and Bridge of Spies (which didn’t have a stellar box office either).

      Studios are saving too many of their top movies for the last quarter of the year and with all the streaming options of Netflix, Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, not to mention the great TV that’s available on cable, people aren’t willing to spend $10-15 on a just-released film unless it’s a mega-blockbuster that looks amazing on IMAX, such as Hunger Games and Star Wars. They’ll wait and watch it at home on their 60-in HD TV with surround sound for next to nothing.

      ETA: I was one of the 3 mill that streamed Beasts of No Nation on Netflix. Hard to watch, but well done in every respect.

      • Algernon says:

        Beasts of No Nation shattered me. I cried so hard when it was over. It was such a good movie.

      • Andrea says:

        I went and saw Crimson Peak this weekend and loved it! It seemed like less people were at my theatre than normal though.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        CP was one to see on IMAX. The visuals in that film were stunning.

      • Lori says:

        I watched Beasts of No Nation too. I’m glad it was a netflix watch. I don’t think I could have done it in a theatre. I had to stop it a couple of times. but I’m glad I watched it.

  8. mia girl says:

    I keep wondering why, aside from putting him in the black turtleneck and throwing some glasses on him, the film makers/Fassbender did nothing to make him more closely resemble Jobs. They could have at least fixed his hair/hairline.

    We’ve seen enough actors transform themselves for biopics. Moviegoers love that. I truly believe that with posters and trailers showing an actor with zero resemblance and zero attempt to resemble the man he is playing, people got turned off. Or at the very least didn’t get excited to see this biopic.

  9. Maya says:

    I am so glad this movie is getting panned – I love Michael but anything associated with Rudin – well happy for it to be a flop.

    • LAK says:

      You may a well whistle in the wind because for every one Rudin picture flop, there are 3 doing quite well.

      The man is, and has always been, a wanker, but he wins. Always.

  10. Mia4s says:

    Concept is king. It might have drawn a bit more interest with an old school star (Bale, Dicaprio) but not much. These days it doesn’t matter. Remember outside of Marvel the Avengers cannot open a phone book. Scarlett you say? Yes her silly action movie Lucy was a huge hit. What about her incredibly well reviewed Under her Skin? Nothing.

    See? Concept.

    • Anname says:

      Yes, being a “movie star” does not mean what is used to mean. No name guarantees a hit anymore. A big name gets more media coverage for the film, but doesn’t automatically translate to big box office.

      • Alicia says:

        Everyone loves Sandra Bullock, yet even her new one (Our Brand Is Crisis) is on track to bomb hard this coming weekend.

  11. Div says:

    A lot of the critics on Twitter criticized this Variety piece and chalked it up to it being a competitive weekend, advertising, and not much interest in the first place in the topic. There are very few true bankable actors anymore…maybe JLaw, Jolie, RDJ, and a few others. It’s not really fair to pin it on bankability when you consider that, and it seems like Sony is looking at an easy scapegoat instead of multiple factors. I’m surprised the box office is considered that much of a disappointment considering it’s an R rated film structured like a play,

    • Mireille says:

      Except that you can be sure that those same Twitter critics would have have blamed “JLaw, Jolie, RDJ, etc.” for their movies flopping and NOT a “competitive weekend, advertising, and not much interest in the first place in the topic.” Why every excuse in the book for the Jobs film? Sorry, don’t care for critics — they pick and choose who and what they like — just like any other film goer. So, for my 2 cents, Jobs flopped because there was simply no interest in another Jobs bioflick and Fassbender really had nothing to do with it.

      • Algernon says:

        “critics — they pick and choose who and what they like”

        Literally their job description.

        But yes, I think the main issue is that most people just aren’t interested in movies about Steve Jobs. The Kutcher one may have done better than this one, but it’s not like it was a huge hit, either. It also failed. People just don’t care to see this story.

      • Bridget says:

        Because those movie stars are hired and paid handsomely specifically because they’re supposed to bring butts into the theater based on the power of their name alone. Fassbender? He was never expected to be the draw for this movie, rather it was supposed to be successful based on its pedigree and the reviews.

        I’m also going to wait and see if this is really a “flop”. Obviously this wasn’t a movie for a wide release like that (what braniac came up with that idea so early in the Fall?) but this is exactly the kind of movie that gets a bump with the awards nominations. Granted, I personally have NO desire to see it. Not interested in Steve Jobs, and I think Aaron Sorkin is a hack.

  12. toot says:

    It flopped because no one cares that much about Steve Jobs story.

    • herewego says:

      no true…

      I think with Christian Bale it would have made at least a $25Million weekend

      and dare I say, even with a Tom Cruise casting it would have made $40million if anything just out of curiosity to see how he played him.

      • Elsie Otter says:

        Making up hypothetical figures does not help your argument… And I disagree. Regardless of who played Jobs, this movie would not have done well at the box office. It’s yet another movie about a (brilliant) businessman. It’s not an interesting enough story to make people leave their houses and spend $15 at a movie theatre.

      • Rhiley says:

        Tom Cruise as Steve Jobs? There are no shoes with big enough lifts to make that seem remotely believable. Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise in every single movie. Plus, I don’t think Steve Jobs ever jumped off a sky scraper onto an airplane that was plummeting into the ocean, that is, until Steve Jobs managed to get to the cockpit and send the plane soaring back into the sky and landed it on the moon. So with no stunt work to master, Tom Cruise would have been sad and bored playing Steve Jobs.

      • Pinky says:

        @Elsie You tell her making up hypothetical figures does not strengthen her argument, but then continue to present your opinion as fact? Come on.

        I’m more inclined to go with her assessment because very few Cruise films have flopped–and $20m opening is kind of a flop for Cruise–but Fassbender has never done that on his own, with top billing. It’s like Chris Rock said: wait for Tom Cruise.

        But seriously, they chose a dumb weekend to open (should have timed it with the release of the iPhone 6S) and it’s only hope is an Oscar nod. Should have kept it in limited release to build people’s curiosity and interest. It’s lack of availability and accessibility would have been a much more successful draw. If you can’t compete on the big guys’ stage. Lure them into yours.

      • Bridget says:

        Tom Cruise isn’t exactly selling non-Mission Impossible movies these days. Jack Reacher? Oblivion? Edge of Tomorrow? Not exactly gangbuster successes. This movie was never going to do crazy business with someone else in the lead, and the only way Tom Cruise would have made it into a $40 million dollar opening is if somehow we were magically transported back to 1996.

        And are you even familiar with Christian Bale’s work outside of Batman? He’s not someone that gets hired because of his commercial appeal.

      • Jellybean says:

        I do like Christian Bale, but I don’t think he is a bums on seats actor, any more than Fassbender is.

  13. Sara says:

    No, it flopped because no one really cares about Steve Jobs the man. Everyone who is informed enough to see a movie like that already knows about his life.

    • herewego says:

      Nope it flopped because Fassy is probably just NOT box office and rumors are the film is not great, besides no one really knows him outside of rabid fans. IMO

      Put Christian Bale, Tom Cruise even if the film would have been reviewed poorly it would have made BANK.

      • Bridget says:

        Like Oblivion made bank? Like Jack Reacher? What’s with the fixation on Cruise and Bale?

      • Alicia says:

        @Bridget – Yes, they made bank.

        Jack Reacher – $218 million
        Oblivion – $286 million
        Edge of Tomorrow – $369 million

        That’s an average of $291 million per movie. Not great numbers by Cruise’s high standards, but he definitely still draws.

      • Bridget says:

        Those movies were domestic duds, buoyed by international numbers (not to mention that 2 out of 3 of those movies had very significant budgets and marketing added in, making those numbers a lot less impressive). Jack Reacher was supposed to be a franchise starter that didn’t happen. Do you really think that Jobs is going to play well internationally?

    • PunkyMomma says:

      Maybe a combination of both – Jobs was not a nice person, period. And Fassy was miscast – Bale would have been interesting.

      • Anname says:

        Fassbender is getting amazing reviews for his performance, possibly Oscar contender. That doesn’t exactly say “miscast” to me.

    • Kiki says:

      No it flopped because Steve Jobs the movie was too opportunist. Why would you do a movie that everyone knows that Steve Jobs is an a**hole but a genius innovator. Michael Fassbender was miscast because mthe Director Danny Boyle was too eager to work with him and Aaron Sorkin was just want anothe OSCAR to put with his mantle. They both want OSCARs.

      If Michael Fassbender became a whiny, desperate person for an Oscar, I am so done with him and live with my disappointment. Because I love Michael Fassbender.

    • Jegede says:



      People can knock Tom Cruise, but none of these new dudes will have his longevity or even his ‘flops’ domestic or international.

  14. Viv says:

    Why do we need a second Jobs movie? Why can’t producers create their own characters rather than trying to steal peoples legacies? His family opposed the movie because they felt it unfairly demonised him. People are a mix of good and bad, any of us can be presented as a saint or demon depending on which interpretation and focus someone decides to take on our lives. Why would I go to watch a movie bad mouthing a recently deceased man at huge hurt to his loved ones whose personal lives are being exploited against their will when I can go see a movie that is made to entertain me?

    Hollywood needs to back off on invading the lives of real people who do not ask to be under their slanderous microscope. Stop wasting money on talentless people with no imaginations and invest in talent who have the creative abilities to invent characters and stories that we want to watch without exploiting and hurting private citizens. They may need to look outside their nepotistic bubble for that – all the better.

    • Kiki says:

      @Viv. I happened to agree with you, which brings me back to my point with both Danny Boyle and Aaron Sorkin. They just did the movie because they want more Oscars. That’s why I agree with Tim Cook, the film is too opportunist.

  15. Sochan says:

    Hmm. I’m not a Fassy fangirl at all. I’ve seen him in several movies but never on purpose, which really shows how prolific he is. If you saw at least half a dozen movies in a 5-year period at least one of them was bound to have Fassbender in it! But anyway, I have heard repeatedly that he is so great in Jobs, and he’s a great actor anyway. I just don’t think people are interested in a movie about Steve Jobs. It’s not any actor who killed the movie — it’s just the subject.

  16. Sam says:

    Part of the problem is that Jobs’ life has already been picked over and documented pretty extensively. All the people I know who were Jobs fans or interested in him didn’t wait for a movie – they read the biography of him.

    And I also think people don’t want to see movies about a-holes. Yes, Jobs was a genius who fundamentally changed a lot about the world. But he was also an emotionally abusive perfectionist who terrorized the people who worked for him. And a lot of people don’t want to see somebody like that hailed as a hero, even if he did do a lot of amazing stuff. It’s hard to sit there and watch somebody do that and see him as the hero of the film. I think people want characters they can actually cheer for, and Jobs isn’t that type of person.

    • PoliteTeaSipper says:

      I work with emotionally abusive perfectionists who terrorize their workers all day, every day–the last thing I want to do on my rare time off is go see a movie about someone like that.

      Add me to the “tired of/unimpressed by Jobs” train.

    • LAK says:

      You can know everything about a subject and still enjoy the film. It’s been done in the past many, many times eg TITANIC. Who doesn’t know the ship sinks at the end? Yet the world flocked to see it.

      Ditto THE IRON LADY, CHAPLIN, GHANDHI, Tina Turner biopic, the multiple versions on TV and film about Henry 8 and Elizabeth W etc

      Sometimes a film simply doesn’t work, but that’s can be for any number of reasons eg the recent Mandela biopic. That had the added bonus of the man himself dying the day of it’s premiere which should have seen audience members flocking to see it, but it sank.

      • Sam says:

        But WHY did people go to see Titanic? Because it put an angle on the story that had not been done before – a love story playing out against the disaster. It created fictional characters who you could actually root for.

        Jobs doesn’t do anything new. It tried to bring in the relationship with his oldest daughter to humanize him, but again, the book already covered that extensively. All those other films you cite actually managed to bring in a new angle, a new idea about the person. Jobs didn’t – it’s basically a re-telling of the Isaacson book.

    • Algernon says:

      The movie doesn’t hail him as a hero, though. He is depicted as an emotionally abusive a-hole who terrorizes everyone around him, but he also innovated some really cool stuff. It’s not a lovey-dovey look at Steve Jobs.

      • Sam says:

        That…was the point of my post.

        Steve Jobs was a genius. He was also a nasty, perfectionist, abusive tyrant. Those people don’t make good movie centers. People go to movies to be able to see characters that they can root for, and care for, and want them to succeed. Who would root for such a person on screen? Very few people. And why go to see a film that places such a person at its center?

      • Algernon says:

        Except The Wolf of Wall Street was a hit. So was American Hustle. Those movies aren’t about loveable underdogs. The problem for Steve Jobs is that since the real Jobs’ death, there’s already been a lot of coverage and I don’t think the interest was ever there.

      • Sam says:

        I have to disagree. People went to Wolf of Wall Street to see Leo act totally out of his zone and do something he had never really done before. There was a novelty to that movie that made people go see it. This didn’t have that.

  17. Meatball says:

    Ya I don’t think it had anything to do with Michael. I just think most people just don’t care about Steve Jobs. They care about Apple products and the next thing, but couldn’t care less about the people who design and create them.
    I feel like every movie that got released this weekend did not do every well.

  18. Lilacflowers says:

    Like Jobs himself, nobody was interested in the Apple 2. Good performance from Fassbender but really boring movie.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Was it? I shouldn’t bother then? Even on DVD?

      • Lilacflowers says:

        What you see in the trailer is essentially the film. Lots of walking and talking in a backstage setting about the same repeated topics (acknowledgment of the daughter, acknowledgment of Apple 2; why won’t this launch work; why undermine the Mac?) with good performances from Fassy, Winslet, Daniels, and the kids.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Ok. Sounds boring. Thanks.

  19. Anname says:

    It seems most mid-budget dramas struggle in today’s Superhero/tentpole environment. It doesn’t seem to matter who the star is – pretty much all of them have had box office flops somewhere along the way. I don’t think Fassbender is to blame here.

    Many believe that these types of movies will be planned as Netflix exclusives and have tiny/no theatrical runs, in the coming years. Beasts of No Nation had 3 million views in its first week, a much bigger audience than they would have ever gotten with a traditional release, per Deadline.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Beasts was a better movie too

    • Algernon says:

      “It seems most mid-budget dramas struggle in today’s Superhero/tentpole environment.”

      That environment exists precisely because people stopped going to see movies like this. Superheroes didn’t stamp out mid-budget dramas, mid-budget dramas went away and superheros filled the void. You can chart it easily, as TV has gotten better and better, especially in the drama department, over the last fifteen years, dramas at the movies have nearly died out and action spectacle took over. Because that’s all anyone pays for. The rest they can see at home on TV.

      • Anname says:

        I don’t know if that is a full explanation, but I don’t disagree. Part of it certainly is the massive profits that can be made on the huge franchise movies, which are so much more attractive to the studios than the modest profits from a mid-budget drama. There is money to be made, but it is hit or miss and doesn’t bring in the big dollars.
        I do think there will be a place for these types of high quality dramas on Netflix and VOD.

      • Algernon says:

        It’s a whole ecosystem and there are other factors, but the rapid growth of TV/quality over the last 10+ years has done a number on the movie business. On this thread alone, how many people are saying they’d rather just watch this one on Netflix or on demand? People go to the movies for spectacle; everything else they can get at home. And the profits from blockbusters became even more important at the middle of the market fell out. It’s literally the only place studios can make money anymore.

      • lunchcoma says:

        I agree, Algernon. When people want to see good writing in dialogue heavy movies, I think they’re a lot more likely to turn on the TV than check out what’s at the theater. Hell, these days you can usually even see people who are considered “movie stars” in those shows too.

        I also think that the fact that high quality TVs and sound systems have become more accessible is a factor as well. These days, even people who aren’t well off often have a TV with a beautiful picture. Seeing action on a movie screen still seems worth it, but seeing people talking or kissing starts to seem like something you can do from the comfort of your own home.

        I do still think there’s room for movies like Jobs, but I think it’s at a very different price point. If it had been made for the price of something like The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything, both of which cost half as much, it wouldn’t have been a flop and would have probably been a significant financial success if it got awards attention.

  20. NewWester says:

    How many people in the theatre to see this movie were actually watching it? I bet many were too busy looking at their IPhones

  21. herewego says:

    Fassy is not bankable.

    Put Christian Bale, Tom Cruise, in this role and regardless of poor reviews it would have made BANK!

    I actually liked Kutcher in the role, even thought the script was thin, Kutcher actually wasn’t bad.
    His film made more money than Fassy, going by number of theater release.

    • PoliteTeaSipper says:

      You keep making the same posts saying the same things…

    • Mia4s says:

      Why do you keep repeating yourself @Heretogo? You’re also likely wrong.

      Cruise can’t open dramas anymore, that’s why he only does action. Lions for Lambs was his last attempt. He also bombed in Rock of Ages. No one cares unless he’s running from explosions. He’s not an”actor” anymore he’s a spectacle monkey,

      Bale? Maybe. But Out of the Furnace proved he’s vulnerable in high end drama too.

    • Jegede says:

      “I actually liked Kutcher in the role, even thought the script was thin, Kutcher actually wasn’t bad.
      His film made more money than Fassy, going by number of theater release”.

      It is ironic considering how people were blasting Kutcher’s version and Fassbender’s one did not much better.

      It actually did worse if you factor in costs, and hype.

  22. Skyblue says:

    I can’t think of any biopic I would go see in the theater. They’re all films I’d watch as a last resort at home. Wouldn’t matter who played the lead role.

    • EN says:

      Well, all the movies about various kings and queens and presidents and heroes (like Joan of Arc) are essentially biopics. They are very popular.

      And there are so many talented and tragic characters in the past who could be subjects of biopics, we haven’t even scratched the surface. I know so many who deserve their stories to be told , and most people never even heard of these people because they are not Americans. I feel sad about it.

      Though I do think biopics tend to get embellished somewhat to make them more interesting, and then there is criticism of them not being accurate.

    • lunchcoma says:

      I don’t mind biopics, but it’s sort of hard for me to imagine seeing one in a theater if the subject is an extremely famous person who recently died, if only because there’s plenty of documentary coverage of that person’s life available on TV. Someone more obscure might be interesting to me, though.

  23. EN says:

    I think it is a combination of everything – people not wanting to watch a movie about Steve Jobs again without knowing what kind of Steve Jobs they were going to see?
    Was he going to be a villain, a whitewashed version, somewhere in between? There was no buzz about this movie.

    Then you have an actor known to most movie goers only as “Magneto” and they know Magneto and they know Magneto is nothing like Steve Jobs. They don’t know him as an acclaimed dramatic actor, even though he is. Signing up for franchises can be a double edge sword if an actor doesn’t have a wide name recognition in other areas before doing it.

  24. Pandy says:

    Ultimately, the movie is about a business man. How much of a draw is that??

  25. Hodgkiss says:

    The reason I won’t be seeing it when it opens in the UK is professional arsehole Aaron Sorkin. Just throwing that out there.

  26. greenmonster says:

    Quite a few people on IMDB blaming Seth Rogen for the movie to bomb. They claim, because Rogen tweeted a FU to Ben Carson, lots of American people weren’t willing to see the movie.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      The people I know who support Carson don’t go to movies any way and probably don’t know who Rogen is

  27. Dana says:

    Maybe if it was marketed as “Magneto is…JOBS”, people would have gone.

  28. cee says:

    Just maybe Scott Rudin is the problem. You will never get a JP fan to support anything he does and there are lots of us.

  29. Jh says:

    Eh. I was turned off by the whole daughter storyline in the previews. It seemed to be what the whole movie was emotionally banked on and that’s not the movie I was interested in seeing.

  30. Minxx says:

    I don’t think it’s fair to blame Fassbender for the poor box office performance. I don’t know many people who want to see a movie about Steve Jobs, period. The topic is just not that interesting to bring crowds to cinemas. Maybe with Bale it would have been different but not by much. I will probably go to see it because of Fassbender’s performance, which is uniformly praised but definitely NOT because I’m interested in seeing Job’s story. OR, instead of spending money on Jobs, I’ll wait to see Macbeth – Fassbender and Cotillard.. two birds with one stone! 😉

  31. Eden75 says:

    I would have to agree with a lot of the comments here. Another Jobs movie already? Didn’t we just have one? Biopics are more of a couch and blanket kind of movie than spend $25.00 to sit in a crappy chair with a sticky floor kind of movie. I’ll save my $25 for the big explosion movies where I can’t hear people on their phones because of the explosions and I know I won’t be missing important dialogue because there is none.

    I also will not spend my money to watch a movie about Jobs. Yes, I know the revolution that he created (I work in tech and I am, sadly, very aware) but the man was such an a$$hole that I can’t do it. To the point that I have never bought an Apple product (I won an iPod last year, it’s in the house, somewhere….). Anyone who thinks it is ok to ignore your daughter for years, berate and emotionally abuse your staff and peers and then, to top it all off, parking in the handicapped spaces at your own company? Seriously?

    • meme says:

      I agree. No one wants to see a movie about this guy even if he’s played by Fassbender (who was woefully miscast). Fassy is NOT getting an Oscar for this.

  32. Addison says:

    LOL some of these comments that swear another actor would have made more! Or that people think it’s awful. Most critics think it’s great and think that Fassbender is headed for Oscar glory. One critic went as far as to say they should just mail the statue to him right now.

    I think when people get to see this movie in the comfort of their own homes they will recognize what a superior film it is. It is well written and executed. ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ Out of ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

    • Kiki says:

      That’s because they haven’t seen “the Revanant ” yet, which btw.. I hope and wished that this is Leonardo Dicaprio’s time to win.

  33. tacos and tv says:

    I feel bad because I like the guy and it’s not his fault but I mean how many movies or documentaries will they make and realize no one really wants to see a movie about Steve jobs right now? Speaking for myself I have zero interest.

  34. FingerBinger says:

    Nobody wanted to see a film about Steve Jobs. The same with Julian Asssange. Nobody wanted to see a film about the wikileaks guy.

  35. lunchcoma says:

    I don’t think this is Fassbender’s fault. I think it’s the studio’s fault. They overestimated the interest in a Sorkin movie about Steve Jobs. The Ashton Kutcher film about Steve Jobs wasn’t successful, either. I suspect the studio assumed that was a quality issue, but I think this suggests that at least part of the problem is that everyone kind of knows the Steve Jobs story at the moment. I’ll admit I didn’t go see it. I’m sure I will when it’s on DVD, but there are a lot of good movies in the theater this time of year, and this one didn’t make the cut.

  36. Unmade_bed says:

    It failed because computer-creator movie sounds boring…Much like the Volkswagen scandal movie Leo is set to produce

    • FingerBinger says:

      No it’s because there isn’t any interest in Steve Jobs. How you explain why The social network did so well?

    • EN says:

      I think Leo’s movie will be a success. Because of Leo and because he will sell it and market it since he is passionate about the subject.

      I don’t remember Fassy doing any marketing work for the Jobs movie at all.
      May be that is it, Fassbender himself doesn’t care about Steve Jobs?

      I remember how much wrath Cumberbatch and Weinstein got for the endless pushing of the Imitation Game. But they sold it. And that is what you have to do to sell a biopic or a drama.

      • Minxx says:

        Fassbender did a surprising amount of PR for this movie, much more than usual. He almost seems hungry for an Oscar, IMO.

      • EN says:

        > Fassbender did a surprising amount of PR for this movie, much more than usual. He almost seems hungry for an Oscar, IMO.

        I believe you. And that is what I would normally expect. But somehow it all bypassed me, there was no buzz anywhere around here. I think that is a sign of a problem. Whatever he did, didn’t take.

        Was he on any of the US TV morning shows/ evening shows promoting it? Or what was the promotion like?

      • Andrea says:

        He should have gotten the Oscar for Shame or 12 years a Slave.

      • EN says:

        > He should have gotten the Oscar for Shame or 12 years a Slave.

        Definitely. But unfortunately to get there he needs to market himself more, that is just how it is.

      • lisa says:

        @Minxx Fassbender has barely done the basics. The T mag cover,the NYFF and LFF premieres,some screenings and Q&A ,ONE tv appearance. Winslet,Sorkin and Boyle have done much more promotion.

  37. SugarMalone says:

    Oh my god – Winslet’s accent work was crazy bad. Her accent got thicker during each act which made no sense, it should have been the other way around. It was the main thing we were talking about after the movie.

    Otherwise, yeah I agree with everyone else above. I really enjoyed the film but honestly, I went because I like Fassbender. I wouldn’t have gone if anyone else was cast in that role because I just don’t care about Jobs.

    Perhaps Sony should have polled the public in advance of production about how many care enough about Jobs to shell out movie ticket money to see yet another movie about him. It was never going to be a massive box office hit because people are just not as compelled by Jobs as Sony would like to believe.

  38. Another Anna says:

    Agree with those beating the “Steve Jobs is asshole” drum. My lack of personal interest in the man combined with my lack of buying into the Cult of Apple made this a tough sell. Besides that, I’m generally only inclined to see a movie in theaters if it’s something I flat-out cannot wait to see (Inside Out) or if it’s something where the special effects or the actual action of the movie demand a bigger screen (Jurassic World.) Now that we, the general public, can install a big enough screen and decent, if not surround sound in our own homes, why bother paying more and more for a movie that doesn’t need it and is just sort of a “yeah, I’d see it if I happened to catch it” thing.

    • Minxx says:

      Winslet plays Joanna Hoffman who’s Polish, so that’s probably why sounds odd in the movie.

      • SugarMalone says:

        Her accent sounds odd because she starts out with almost no accent and it gets thicker with each act which doesn’t make any sense – with the passage of time one would think her accent would get slighter.

        The accent itself was fine, it was just so spotty in terms of when she used it that it became silly.

  39. Hannah says:

    He will get some nominations and it will make back the money because of that. Think it will be fine.

  40. Andrea says:

    I want to see this, but I can’t find anyone to go with me. Is it THAT bad? Most people have said, just wait until it comes out on dvd/streaming… :/

    • SugarMalone says:

      I really liked it – but it’s VERY theatrical and Sorkin-y so if that turns you off then you may not enjoy it. It’s very definitely a renter though – no need to see it on the big screen.

    • Holmes says:

      Re: not being able to find anyone to go with you…why not just go yourself? I actually just went to a movie by myself for the first time ever this past weekend (wanted to see Crimson Peak, but no one else was interested and/or available). It was much less awkward than I was expecting–I was actually able to focus on the film much better. The only irritating thing was not having someone to discuss and dissect with afterwards. Of course, I’m making assumptions, but if the only reason you wouldn’t go yourself is because doing so seems awkward, give it a try! 😀

      • Andrea says:

        I just saw Crimson Peak this weekend too and I greatly enjoyed it (I don’t get the flack on it). I have no averison to going by myself, but since no one seemed interested in it, I worried it may be really bad.

    • Ella2 says:

      It’s had great reviews so it’s clearly not bad. It’s just not performing great at the box office.

    • Louisa says:

      I see movies by myself all the time. My husband would rather just watch Netflix but it’s one of my favorite things to do so I refuse to miss out. Go to a matinee if you feel awkward. Less crowded and less of a “dating crowd”.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      If you want to see a movie, go by yourself. Lots and lots of people do. If you go in the daytime, you’ll find most of the people there are by themselves. If you go at night, it is actually less obvious but there are people there by themselves. And you pretty much get to sit where you want.

  41. CB says:

    Well, Fassbender did promote it more than he usually does, that much is true. Too bad all the promotion was 2 to 3 weeks before anyone could actually see the movie (except for NYC and CA).
    All in all, I think his lack of superstardom probably played some role, but is very low in the list of responsibilities, as compared to lack of interest for the subject, bad timing, major foot-in-mouth moments by both Sorkin and Rogen etc.
    On the good side, SJ is arguably Universal’s best shot for award seasons, so they will not drop it that easily. Plus the studio can afford a loss after the great year they’ve had in terms of box office. Now, if this were Sony instead things would be quite different. Good for them they stepped out, I guess.

  42. Louisa says:

    I honestly don’t know who would enjoy this movie. I love “Oscar bait” movies and am a huge fan of Fassbender’s and Winslet’s work, but I still have zero interest. It’s the subject. Yawn…..

    • Amal's Wardrobe says:

      The subject: the deification of a (albeit talented in the design sense) man who drove the wave of hyper-consumerism for tech products.

  43. Cindy says:

    I haven’t read the comments yet, so sorry if this was already mentioned. But I read the autobiography of Steve jobs and dear GOD that man was an ahole. I will state this one example because I think it says it all. Steve jobs, while in Starbucks ordering coffee made a senior citizen cry because she didn’t make his drink to his liking. But I will watch the movie because I felt the same about Zuckerberg and loved the Social Network.

  44. shoochai says:

    I know we’ve seen these pics before, but Fassy looks, like, REALLY good in them. That is all 🙂

  45. feebee says:

    Maybe people are just over Steve Jobs.

  46. Don't kill me I'm French says:

    Why is it bombing?
    1/ we learn nothing of new about Jobs.The movie still proves that Jobs was an @@shole.
    2/ it is the 3rd movie on Jobs.Does he deserve 3 movies ? For many,he just sold pretty computers
    3/ Fassbender doesn’t look like Jobs whereas Jobs was enough famous to be recognizable .
    4/ Jobs’relation with his wife was more interesting to humanize him and explain why he was “fascinating”( in my opinion,he was not fascinating.He was a shitty son,father,husband,boss and friend)
    5/ according to some peoples who knew Jobs,the movie is more a fantasy
    6/ Danny Boyle/Sorkin is NOT as interesting as Sorkin/Fincher

    • cd3 says:

      Hear, hear! I’d just add that I think Sorkin is very polarizing. You either love his writing style or you don’t. I don’t. So I have no interest in seeing this, although I love the cast and Danny Boyle.

  47. Amal's Wardrobe says:

    I don’t know why the critics like this film. Great design doesn’t mean you’re changing the world. It’s tragic he died so young and he undoubtedly had passion, but he’s not a legendary inventor/capitalist/industrialist who changed the world. I prefer Elon Musk, who’s actually trying to address a real problem (carbon) than just your itch for a prettier phone (But Elon will not do sexy product launches in a black turtleneck). And apparently Kate’s accent was really bad. Fass is a great actor though.

  48. iheartgossip says:

    How about this: Cause they’ve made too many movies about this Jobs already. He was a complete azz in real life.

  49. Terry says:

    Fassbender seems to have a very cold persona and it seems hard for him to hide his arrogance. It was very much noticeable in the interviews he gave promoting Steve Jobs. I don’t see him ever becoming a box office movie star.

    • Kiki says:

      I think he will be a box office movie star, as long as it is a good script. Although these hollywood scripts are just a full of sh*t these days, he will do just fine. I would hoped however if Michael Fassbender would go back to the director that made his career flourish p, that person is Steve McQueen. Speaking of…. Where is Steve McQueen?

      • Amal's Wardrobe says:

        Steve McQueen is sooooo overrated. I thought Slave was really poorly written and too moralistic. Fassbender is a little naughty and actually quite self-deprecating as far as I know. That criticism of Ashton Kutcher was well justified. Ashton is a Z grade “Actor” compared to Fass.

    • Sunglasses Aready says:

      @TERRY. Saw that too, but what struck me more, he came across as bored, and the first thought that came to mind was if your bored selling your own film than I’m going to be bored watching it. Good actor. But for the future takes some pointers from the likes of Cruise and Smith. These guys know how to promote films.