Posted on 10/26/2015 1:55:49 PM PDT by Swordmaker
"Steve Jobs," the dramatic, fictionalized depiction of Apple's cofounder written by Aaron Sorkin and starring Michael Fassbender, has flopped on its national release, bringing in just $7.3 million for a film that cost $30 million to make.
The movie previously opened to the highest per-theater average of the year in a limited release involving just three theaters in New York City and Los Angeles, resulting in some predictions that the movie might bring in as much as $19 million over its opening weekend.
However, outside of key urban audiences, the film failed to attract interest across the 2,000 theaters showing it this weekend. An earlier movie titled "Jobs," staring Ashton Kutcher, similarly flopped when it brought in $6.7 million on its opening weekend, nearly as much despite poor reviews.
Variety senior film and media reporter Brent Lang called it "too brainy, too cold, and too expensive to make it a success. Moreover, Michael Fassbender, the electrifying Irish actor who replaced (Christian) Bale as Jobs, lacks the drawing power to open the picture."
The controversial bio pic has drawn significant criticism from Apple executives—and other tech industry luminaries who were close to Jobs, including Walt Mossberg—as being inaccurate and failing to capture the real identity of the man who had such a profound impact on consumer technology across many decades.
Audiences who knew of Jobs as Apple's master presenter of new products, a rockstar-like status as that developed as the company sprouted into a global powerhouse that radically shifted markets and set the standard for consumer electronics, are not likely to be interested in seeing a brooding adult drama that portrays him as a bad parent played by the android from Prometheus.
The movie is also arriving with strong competition for adult audiences, with Lang noting that "Steven Spielberg's 'Bridge of Spies,' Nancy Meyer's 'The Intern,' and the Johnny Depp mob movie 'Black Mass' are all appealing to older crowds, and there is a wealth of specialty films in limited release like 'Room' that are attracting the art-house set."
He cited Universal's domestic distribution chief Nick Carpou as saying, "We are going to continue to support the film in the markets where it is showing strength and we're going to continue to do it aggressively and proactively. The critics are there for it and the buzz in these markets is strong."
However, Lang noted that "It's still hard to see how the film turns a profit. The picture cost $30 million to make and at least as much to market. That means that 'Steve Jobs' needs to do at least $120 million in order to break even. Given that the film is dialogue-driven and lacks a major star, its foreign prospects seem bleak. It's almost entirely a domestic play, and so far it's only made about $10 million."
I never planned on seeing it.
Awwwwwwwwwwwww that’s just too darn bad isnt it..could also have flopped because that bigot Seth Rogan is in the film and he told Ben Carson to go “F himself” recently..looks like Seth is the one that got the big F U right back at himself
There have been what? About a half dozen films or TV miniseries about Steve Jobs (or Steve and Bill Gates) over the past 10 years. The topic has been beat to death.
It flopped and so did the Dan Rather flick.
Really, who wants to watch that crap?
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Did the Dan Rather movie come and go already?? I didn’t realize that. I thought we were still in the pre-release hype stage. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Next to flop will be the Robert Redford\Dan Rather lovefest, “Truth.”
Sorkin is terrible and no one cares about steve jobs. Makes me wonder how these movies get a green light
Sounds about the number for the past four years since Steve's death. . .
So why do they keep making Steve Jobs movies?
Since they made Jobs look like Eldon Tyrell, not surprising it went down the toilet.
Back in the day, Jobs at least looked hip.
The average American knows nothing of Edison, Henry Ford or even Albert Einstein. They have no concept how the products the use, the food they eat or the wealth they consume came to exist. There would be no mass interest in the life of Steve Jobs or Bill Gates other than to resent and envy their wealth.
Of course, having Roy give Steve the old “thumb lasik” would have been worth seeing.
Hollyweird... They just don’t get it. No one cares about these phony baloney tech pimps and their ricky ticky life.
Funny thing. . . I re-watched "Blade Runner" on HBO On Demand just last night. Great movie. Did you realize the time frame of Blade runner is just five-six years from now? Roy's incept date was 2017 and his death was four years from that. . . which would make it 2021. So, according to the story line, we've had star travel by now, our cities have been invaded by Japanese immigrants, not Chinese or Muslims, we've lost the climate change battle, and we've built huge truncated pyramid warrens for us all to live in, and, like Back to the Future 2, we've invented flying cars. Not to mention, all natural animals are completely protected, except wasps, while artificial animals expensive but commonplace playthings of the rich and powerful, and nearly human beings are being created as disposable slaves with not much thought as to the consequences. How very human. . . er, Liberal. . .
Damn, we seem to have missed all that.
Think a lotta people in the Sillycon Slum still wanna do that...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.