Steve Wozniak On ‘Steve Jobs’: “I Felt Like I Was Actually Watching Him” – Telluride Film Festival
Versión para imprimir
De la critica de Variety
http://variety.com/2015/film/festiva...al-1201586996/
Dice que uno de los golpes visuales de la peli es la decision de rodar los 3 actos de la peli, con 3 formatos diferentesCita:
the picture’s major visual coup is the decision to shoot the three acts on three different formats: grainy 16mm film for 1984, lustrous 35mm for 1988, and sleek, high-definition digital for 1998
16 mm (para el acto ambientado en 1984)
35 mm (para el acto ambientado en 1988)
Digital HD (para el acto ambientado en 1998)
Ya me veo a más de un "entendido" quejarse cuando la estrenen en cines y la editen en Blu-Ray porque dirán que al principio hay demasiado grano y no se ve bien :sudor :descolocao :aprende :cuniao :cuniao :cuniaoCita:
Iniciado por Brando
Cita:
Iniciado por Brando
A mi también me parece un acierto. Una peli que trata de tecnología, mostrada con la puntera de cada momento, por así decirlo.
Me ha gustado este segundo trailer. Con musiquilla que recuerda a La red social, además.
Saludos
A mi también me parece perfecta esa música para el trailer y para el film. No tenía controlado a Daniel Pemberton, pero he visto desde que despuntó con El consejero, que no para.
La verdad es que tiene mucho bueno esta propuesta. Y parece que esos ingredientes (director, guionista, actor principal, alguno que otro secundario, música...) pueden tener eco en las nominaciones. Otra cosa son los premios, como ya vimos con La red social. Y más este año, que hay aún mucho por ver.
-1984: MacintoshCita:
Iniciado por Brando
-1988: Next + inicios de Pixar
-1998: dos años después de su regreso a Apple, presentan el primer iMac.
Synch
Me ha gustado el trailer, a ver si consiguen borrarnos de la memoria la película de hace 2 años :picocerrado
He visto una unidad Macintosh y al final la presentación del primer iMac (realmente el relanzamiento de Apple tal y como la conocemos hoy en día empezó ahí, bueno, entre el iMac del '98 y el iPod del 2001) y en medio, así en plan épico (ni idea de si aquel día realmente llovía tanto) la expulsión de Jobs de su propia empresa por parte del resto de accionistas liderados por el ex Pepsi que Jobs fichó para que le ayudara a manejar Apple.
A ver si en esta hablan de Pixar (y de Next) porque en la de 2013 apenas se dijo nada y es importante. Jobs quedó sorprendido con lo que vio en el Rancho Skywalker en su visita en 1985-1986 para negociar la compra del Graphics Group. Y sorprender a ese hombre, en ese año, era difícil.
Y por favor, que salga la visita al Xerox Parc :D:D:D:D
Synch
Steve Jobs es la nueva portada de The Hollywood Reporter
http://i.imgur.com/IJPSyb4.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/MRYklVB.jpg
A Look Inside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TboZAzj59c
Featurette:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9ZQVlgfEAc
Steve Jobs’ Widow Tried to Stop the Movie; Apple Design Chief Jony Ive Speaks OutFuente: http://www.slashfilm.com/steve-jobs-...e-powell-jobs/Cita:
Critics love Steve Jobs, but among those who knew the man personally, reactions to the project have been more mixed, to say the least. A new report claims Jobs’ widow Laurene Powell Jobs actively lobbied actors like Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale to turn down the project, while Apple design chief Jony Ive has spoken out against the film. Read the Steve Jobs movie Laurene Powell Jobs and Jony Ive objections after the jump.
Ives admitted to the Wall Street Journal that he hasn’t yet seen Steve Jobs. However, based on what he’s heard of it so far, he says he thinks it’s “ever so sad” that the film portrays Jobs as someone he doesn’t “recognize at all.” “How you are portrayed can be hijacked by people with agendas that are very different than your close family and your friends,” he said. “That’s a bit of a struggle personally.”
While he acknowledged Jobs was a tough boss, Ives insisted Jobs wasn’t “an asshole” for demanding to get things right. “You could’ve had somebody who didn’t ever argue, but you wouldn’t have the phones you have,” he said. “There wasn’t this grand plan of winning or very complicated agenda,” he continued. “That stands in such contrast to how he’s been frequently and popularly portrayed.”
Powell Jobs went even further with her objections. She was not a fan of the book on which the movie is based, Walter Isaacson‘s Steve Jobs, and according to the WSJ, believed “that any movie based on the book could not possibly be accurate.” Sources who spoke with THR says her efforts to block the movie included calling DiCaprio and Bale to dissuade them from take the role, and pressuring each of the major studios not to pick up the project.
Once plans for the movie got rolling, Powell Jobs refused to participate. While screenwriter Aaron Sorkin spoke to many who’d been close to Jobs, Powell Jobs refused to meet with him. Nevertheless, Sorkin has said he believes she’ll be “pleasantly surprised” if she ever gets around to seeing the movie. (For the record, Powell Jobs is not featured or even mentioned in the film.)
Steve Jobs is not surprisingly proving controversial among the people who knew the real Steve Jobs. Earlier, Apple CEO Tim Cook blasted “opportunistic” Steve Jobs movies, though he hadn’t seen Boyle’s film at the time either. On the flip side, Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak praised the movie after seeing a rough cut. “I felt like I was actually watching Steve Jobs,” he said.
Normally, we wouldn’t put much stock in the negative opinions of people who haven’t actually seen the movie they’re criticizing. But it’s interesting to get a perspective on what is, by all accounts, a not-very-flattering portrayal of the late tech CEO, and it’s hard to blame his loved ones for refusing to watch what they believe will be a painful smear job.
Fuente: http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/10/s...iew/#continuedCita:
'Steve Jobs' writer and director on avoiding the typical biopic
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims...758/F3D3X4.jpg
Danny Boyle (28 Days Later, Sunshine) and Aaron Sorkin's (The Social Network, Moneyball) Steve Jobs is a unique film in many ways, not the least of which is its complete disregard for the tropes of most biographical films. Instead, it's more like a play in three parts, each of which occurs before one of Steve Jobs' infamous product reveals: the Macintosh in 1984; the NeXT computer in 1988; and the iMac in 1998. For a pseudo-follow-up to Sorkin's Oscar-winning Facebook founding story, Steve Jobs basically feels like the complete opposite. We had the chance to sit down with Sorkin and Boyle to discuss how they crafted the film, how Jobs' daughter, Lisa Brennan-Jobs, helped the production and how they dealt with the specter of The Social Network.
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims...anny+Boyle.JPG
Steve Jobs director Danny Boyle (left) and writer Aaron Sorkin
What led both of you to this project?
Sorkin: I was asked to adapt it -- I had a really good experience with producer Scott Rudin and Sony [on The Social Network and Moneyball]. This was a very big subject that ... I said yes before I knew really what I was going to do, or anything about it. ... I knew what I didn't want to do, and that was a biopic; that cradle-to-grave structure where it's the greatest hits along the way ... I wanted to do something else. What it turned out to be is almost ... a play-like construct. It was obviously going to need two things: a visual master, and someone brilliant at getting great performances from actors. Even the best actors weren't going to be able to come in and simply learn their lines and do it. And all of those things point to Danny.
Boyle: I've never read anything like this before. I mean, I knew a bit about Steve Jobs, but kind of the lazy bits we'd all picked up. ... Just the bravado of it, and the fact that it wasn't a biopic, and the fact that you learned so much more than you would have from a biopic. And there was also the challenge of it. I mean I love that -- when you just don't know.
Did you look beyond Walter Isaacson's book at all for material?
Sorkin: I read everything that I could get my hands on. But what was more important, and more valuable than that, was spending time with all of the people who are represented in the film, obviously with the exception of Steve. And then with a few dozen others beyond that. I was very lucky to be able to spend time with Lisa Brennan-Jobs. She had been unwilling to speak with Walter when he was writing the book because her father was alive at the time.
Also, John Sculley had practically been in hiding since 1986 when he left Apple -- he was eager, in fact, to speak with me. Joanna Hoffman was a huge asset. A number of people who aren't in the movie, like Lee Clow (the ad mastermind who helped come up with Apple's 1984 commercial and "Think Different" campaign) and former Apple CEO Mike Markkula were great to talk to. And Woz [Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak] was great to talk to.
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims...52Btrailer.jpg
I love how you focused on the relationship between Steve and Lisa. How did she help you craft that relationship?
Sorkin: I have a daughter and Danny has two. I'll be honest, it was very difficult for me to initially get past Steve's treatment of his daughter. I thought ... the story kind of stops there for me. I don't care what's past that. I never said that to Lisa, but Lisa helped me past that. She would tell stories about her father that weren't necessarily the most flattering stories, but she would always, at the end of it, kind of point and say, "See? He really loved me because of this." And that was very helpful.
How did Steve's treatment of Lisa make you feel? When I first learned about it, I thought: "This guy was a genius who's done so much. ... How do you react like this to your daughter?"
Sorkin: Asking yourself that question kind of leads to storytelling. Once you can say, that doesn't make any sense, you find yourself wanting to answer that question.
I like how you described the film as kind of play-like. It does feel very unique. How did you go about adapting that?
Sorkin: To be clear, the script is play-like. The film is as cinematic as it gets!
Boyle: What was wonderful about it was obviously the very restrictiveness of it. There's a turning point where you find it very liberating. And I think that's true of the actors as well. You can see this on Michael [Fassbender, who plays Jobs], especially in the third act. The pressure on the obligation of servicing this kind of writing is both crushing at times ... but it's actually very liberating in the end when you own it. And we devised a way of doing it that would make the actors own it. So we broke it into three [parts], so that would make it manageable size-wise. And they could just focus on each story. ... Breaking it into three and then emphasizing the difference between those three was very liberating.
It is very challenging, initially. And it's weird, the [relationship between] restriction and freedom. We've been offered a lot of money sometimes to do things, and we've always taken less money. Because I find that very liberating as well, when you're stuck a bit.
Sorkin: I know what Danny is saying. In television, every once in a while with the West Wing, or something, the studio would say, "We've been over budget the last seven episodes, can you write an episode with no guest cast, no new sets, no extras, that kind of thing?" Those have always turned out to be my favorite episodes because those restrictions make you think, "Okay, well this is just going to take place in a few rooms." It's better than just a blank piece of paper.
How did you both go about making this film different than The Social Network? You can't really escape that comparison.
Boyle: No you can't, and you shouldn't either because I think it really is a successor. Aaron's slightly shyer about this, but I thought the first time I read it was: This is part two. ... Also, when you go back and look at [The Social Network], it was amazing how it's mainly people sitting down. A major motion picture with that kind of appeal and energy and everybody sits down, all the time. And the only time they don't sit down, something enormous happens. ... That led you to its successor and how it's completely different. This [film] is all about movement. When you read it, they were always in motion. That must be because Steve was about that himself.
Sorkin: Steve loved having meetings walking around. Even in casting, an actor would come in, and Danny would talk to them about how this is a standing-up movie. And he's right. ... Now when someone sits down, it has a dramatic meaning.
Boyle: It sounds so puerile, the difference, but it's actually fundamental to what you're doing. Because then you know you're going to be moving, and you know the equipment you need, and we got this Steadicam operator, Geoff Haley; he became like one of the players. You know, moving around the rooms with the actors -- they would trust him.
http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-shared/dims...e%252BJobs.jpg
It always seems tough to end a story when it's based on a real person. How did you go about attacking that final act -- especially that final sequence between Jobs and Lisa?
Sorkin: I knew, again, because this wasn't going to be a biopic, that this wouldn't end with Steve dying, or going to the doctor, or anything like that. ... Danny did something fantastic that I didn't expect. Steve walks on stage at the end, flash bulbs are going off everywhere, and he looks back and winks at his daughter, and she's looking at him. Those blue flashbulbs just begin to envelop him and he disappears. So Danny did make him die at the end.
Boyle: It's not about the fame, and success and all that. And obviously, there's an adoring public who remains faithful despite his death, because they remain addicted to him, his philosophy, his products and his company. But it was really about: She [Lisa] has lost her dad. So the [Steve Jobs] myth lives on ... but for a girl, her dad's gone. ... We tried to make it feel like that -- very personal. And she had clearly been very fundamental to Aaron's writing. Her and Joanna, especially. We felt like we owed it to her, in some way.
Featurette:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2TZPQBkjvY
Parece que pinta bien
http://i.imgur.com/uup8Ftp.png
http://i.imgur.com/x1lgfkN.png
A Look Inside:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezrgUY5GAcg
Cast & Filmmaker Rountable Discussion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY1MdYlnnvQ
Confío plenamente en Michael Fassbender y Aaron Sorkin
Vista... y peliculón.
Espectacular Fassbender, se postula como uno de los favoritos al Oscar, hacía tiempo que no veía una interpretación de tal calibre.
El sensacional trabajo de Fass también se ve apoyado por unos diálogos brutales y la maravillosa puesta en escena, tanto visual como sonora, que siempre nos regala Danny Boyle en todas sus películas.
Cinco estrellas le doy... o un 9 / 9'5.