With an Oscar-winning director, writer and producer, and a prestigous cast, including Michael Fassbender, Seth Rogen and Oscar winner Kate Winslet, the new biopic “Steve Jobs” was supposed to bask in more than critical success upon its national release this past weekend.
It was supposed to enjoy a commercially respectable arrival in U.S. theaters.
While “Steve Jobs,” about Apple’s visionary co-founder, enjoyed mostly positive reviews, it limped through its national release, earning only $7.2 million, according to Variety.
That’s just a little more than the $6.7 million the widely panned “Jobs” biopic, starring Ashton Kutcher, earned in 2013.
Now critics are wondering: what went wrong with the new Steve Jobs movie? Sure, acclaimed Oscar-bait movies usually don’t rake in “Ironman” blockbuster numbers, but the film, directed by Danny Boyle and written by Aaron Sorkin, was supposed to bring in at least $19 million, Variety said.
Variety writer Brent Lang suggests that “Steve Jobs” was too brainy, too cold and too expensive to make it a success. He also says Fassbender, an electrifying Irish actor starring as Jobs, unfortunately lacks the drawing power to open a movie, unlike others previously attached to the project: Christian Bale and Leonardo DiCaprio.
It’s possible that strong word of mouth going into the awards season could help “Steve Jobs” bring in more money, but it will need to earn a lot to break even because it cost about $30 million to make and at least that much to market, Lang wrote.
He notes that Universal expected “Steve Jobs” to enjoy the critical and commercial success of the Facebook drama “The Social Network,” which also had Sorkin’s involvement. But “The Social Network” was released in 2010 when Facebook was just become a cultural phenomenon, so was it had this newness factor going for it.
Meanwhile, “Steve Jobs” follows not just the Kutcher movie but Walter Isaacson’s lauded Jobs biography, which Sorkin used as the basis for his screenplay. Also, the Alec Gibney-helmed documentary “Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine” hit theaters in September and there have been countless profiles and think pieces pondering the meaning of Steve Jobs and his innovations at the turn of the 21st century.
The ubiquity of Jobs in the cultural conversation leads Slate writer Sharan Shetty to suggest that maybe people are tired of seeing movies or reading more stories about Jobs. She writes: “The modern moviegoer is a wee bit exhausted by anything to do with Jobs, and especially indifferent to a movie called ‘Steve Jobs’ that doesn’t have a big-name star at its helm.”
Martha Ross provides celebrity commentary for the Bay Area News Group. Follow her at twitter.com/marthajross.
