Jobs

It looks terrible, not to mention about as inaccurate as it can be. And the near-mythical romanticizing of Jobs as some sort of tech deity is gag-inducing, at best.
 
Last edited:
It looks terrible, not to mention about as inaccurate as it can be.

Is there some link to all the inaccuracies?

I know there are some I've read about -- mostly related to the interaction between Jobs and Wozniak, but nothing I've read so far indicates it is as inaccurate as it can be. (not sure what that means).
 
Saw the gizmodo exchange.

Thanks for the other link.

In reading these exchanges, it seems there are two polar sides, and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I grew up on Silicon Valley at the time much of this was occurring, and most of these events were less than five miles from where I lived in Cupertino.

Back then it was strawberry fields, apricot and plum orchards, and truck farms.

We used to play in the fields that now are the Cupertino campus.

Great era to grow up in.
 
Last edited:
I thought this one looked good. I don't want accuracy just a good story. Seemed like it might be similar to The Facebook which was a pretty good movie.
 
I haven't seen it but being factual or not doesn't bother me as long as its well written with interesting dialogue and characters. The Social Network was mostly a fabricated story and it was great. If it was a documentry I would be upset about the factual nature.
 
I have to admit, I've never really understood that. If something purports to be showing you factual events, I'd like to think they're factual.

Otherwise, change all the names and do a "story." But if you're presenting real people and real events, and you deviate, knowingly, far from the truth, what's the point?
 
The Social Network was mostly a fabricated story and it was great.

TSN was about as accurate as it could be given the lack of cooperation from the people involved. However, the majority of the story's content and even dialogue was taken from sworn legal testimony and actual blog posts that had been archived. A far cry from this film, to be certain.
 
I have to admit, I've never really understood that. If something purports to be showing you factual events, I'd like to think they're factual.

Otherwise, change all the names and do a "story." But if you're presenting real people and real events, and you deviate, knowingly, far from the truth, what's the point?

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, if that was the case, Hollywood would never be able to make ANY historical film.
 
While I wholeheartedly agree with you, if that was the case, Hollywood would never be able to make ANY historical film.

There's a difference between making necessary compromises and knowingly departing from fact because you think it's a better "story." I don't think it actually serves anyone if you do.
 
I have to admit, I've never really understood that. If something purports to be showing you factual events, I'd like to think they're factual.

Otherwise, change all the names and do a "story." But if you're presenting real people and real events, and you deviate, knowingly, far from the truth, what's the point?

The point is entertainment. Whats' the point in making a boring movie? I can read a Jobs biography or something if I want the "facts", which I don't.
 
The point is entertainment. Whats' the point in making a boring movie? I can read a Jobs biography or something if I want the "facts", which I don't.

Who says it has to be "boring" to be accurate? If the real story really is that "boring," why are you bothering to making a movie about it, and why would anyone want to see it?
 
@@@ Possibly maybe slightly SPOILERS. @@@@@@




Saw it with a friend, he quiet liked it I thought it was ok.

There was lots of Ashton speaking very sternly to people, moments I thought were meant to have more impact than they did. Not really sure I liked the timeline covered in the script. If you're worried they painted Jobs through rose colored glasses, don't be.

Didn't quiet hold my attention.

2.5/5
 
Back
Top