Home Forums Movies Would Steve Jobs done better at box-office with different title??

Would Steve Jobs done better at box-office with different title??

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
Created
2 years ago
Last Reply
2 years ago
23
( +2 hidden )
replies
855
views
13
users
4
4
4
  • Jason Travis
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198211

    I have spoken to many friends, and when I asked them why they didn’t go see Steve Jobs the main answer I get is “it sounds too similar to Jobs with Ashton Kutcher.”

    I find it odd the marketing team/filmmakers couldn’t find a more creative title for the movie then just the name of the Apple CEO. After all, films like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game center around famous innovators, yet they had catchier titles.

    I am wondering if this had been given a more creative name, if audiences would have flocked more? Or was it just simply not an interesting concept?

    I also find it a bit of a letdown that none of the three main events focused in the story center around the iPhone. They’re all pre-2000. I would have thought they would have at least given us some of how Jobs was towards the end of his life.

    Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
    13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views

    FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017

    Reply
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198213

    I doubt anyone decides to see a movie based on title alone when it comes to non franchise movies. Are people not going to see Room because it sounds too much like The Room? 

    ReplyCopy URL
    bruce melo
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 11th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198214

    Would The Social Network have done as well as it did if it was called Mark Zuckerberg?
    By a degree, probably not. 
    I feel a better title would have drawn in quite a few more people, and it would still have done poorly, as the film is hugely flawed.  The main flaw is well defined by Jason Travis in his statement:
    ” I also find it a bit of a letdown that none of the three main events focused in the story center around the iPhone. They’re all pre-2000. I would have thought they would have at least given us some of how Jobs was towards the end of his life.”

    Perhaps a few people saw the following article, and decided not to bother.     

    From Bloombeg Business
      Wozniak on the Steve Jobs Movie and Why Accuracy Doesn’t Matter

    “Everything in the movie didn’t happen,” the Apple co-founder said. But he said it’s still the best-ever on-screen depiction of Jobs. 

    In the movie Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak serves as the film’s conscience. The Apple co-founder, played by Seth Rogen, is an awkward but assertive counterbalance to Jobs. Wozniak’s on-screen confrontations are some of the movie’s most memorable. According to the real Woz, they are all fiction.

    In his first in-depth interview since Steve Jobs‘s release in some U.S. theaters, Wozniak said Rogen’s character “said things I could never say.” “Everything in the movie didn’t happen,” Wozniak told Bloomberg TV. “Every scene that I’m in, I wasn’t talking to Steve Jobs at those events.”
     
    And yet, I went to see Steve Jobs.

    And I saw a really well constructed film.  I liked the screenplay, and the acting, and the editing.  But at the end it felt incomplete…there is so much more to be told.  I love good bios.  I have to admit I liked the movie even though Danny Boyle missed the important contribution Steve Jobs made to the world, and missed his character…       

      

    ReplyCopy URL
    manakamana
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jul 28th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198215

    A different subject matter, perhaps. The fact is that no one asked for this movie to be made. No one asked for The Social Network to be made, either, but at least it merits its existence in a way that Steve Jobs really does not.

    ReplyCopy URL
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198216

    Do most movies get made because people asked for them? Did we ask for a remake to Jumanji? Did we ask for Burnt? I wanted a Steve Jobs movie that wasn’t a joke like the 2013 one. I’m glad this was made. Who cares if the bio pic is titled after the subject of the movie? Where was this bitching when Lincoln came out? Hitchcock? Philomena? Mandela? Why all of a sudden Steve Jobs gets this complaining? 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Jason Travis
    Participant
    Joined:
    May 20th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198217

    Do most movies get made because people asked for them? Did we ask for a remake to Jumanji? Did we ask for Burnt? I wanted a Steve Jobs movie that wasn’t a joke like the 2013 one. I’m glad this was made. Who cares if the bio pic is titled after the subject of the movie? Where was this bitching when Lincoln came out? Hitchcock? Philomena? Mandela? Why all of a sudden Steve Jobs gets this complaining? 

    Notice all the titles you mentioned were just one name, making it sound more simplistic. Steve Jobs just doesn’t ring right. And no one’s complaining. I was asking a simple question. Aren’t we sensitive!

    Follow Me on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/jasonmovieguy
    13K Subscribers, 29 Million Views

    FYC: Derbyite of the Year, 2017

    ReplyCopy URL
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198218

    [quote=”KyleBailey”]

    Do most movies get made because people asked for them? Did we ask for a remake to Jumanji? Did we ask for Burnt? I wanted a Steve Jobs movie that wasn’t a joke like the 2013 one. I’m glad this was made. Who cares if the bio pic is titled after the subject of the movie? Where was this bitching when Lincoln came out? Hitchcock? Philomena? Mandela? Why all of a sudden Steve Jobs gets this complaining? 

    Notice all the titles you mentioned were just one name, making it sound more simplistic. Steve Jobs just doesn’t ring right. And no one’s complaining. I was asking a simple question. Aren’t we sensitive!
    [/quote]

    There are just so many people who seem out to get this movie for no damn reason. It’s a great movie. It’s gonna get a ton of nominations. Even if it didn’t do well in wide release it still is appering on Indiewire’s 20 hightest grossing indies list. Of course this movie couldn’t be called Jobs because some bad more already took that. Seriously what did people want this movie to be called? MAC? Before 3 Product Launches? Why is it such a bad thing to name your movie the full name of your subject? 

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198219

    I doubt anyone decides to see a movie based on title alone when it comes to non franchise movies. Are people not going to see Room because it sounds too much like The Room? 

    Hell if that were the reasoning I would see it to see if it were related to that multiple Oscar worthy masterpiece!!!!

    Also Steve Jobs needed to be released in a different time of the year with a stronger and more interesting ad campaign. We didn’t get ads really until about two weeks before its release. Build some anticipation for this film. They did not. It kind of just went into theaters. What a shame. This movie really fell and cracked like my iPhone.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198220

    [quote=”Jason_Travis”]

    [quote=”KyleBailey”]

    Do most movies get made because people asked for them? Did we ask for a remake to Jumanji? Did we ask for Burnt? I wanted a Steve Jobs movie that wasn’t a joke like the 2013 one. I’m glad this was made. Who cares if the bio pic is titled after the subject of the movie? Where was this bitching when Lincoln came out? Hitchcock? Philomena? Mandela? Why all of a sudden Steve Jobs gets this complaining? 

    Notice all the titles you mentioned were just one name, making it sound more simplistic. Steve Jobs just doesn’t ring right. And no one’s complaining. I was asking a simple question. Aren’t we sensitive!
    [/quote]

    There are just so many people who seem out to get this movie for no damn reason. It’s a great movie. It’s gonna get a ton of nominations. Even if it didn’t do well in wide release it still is appering on Indiewire’s 20 hightest grossing indies list. Of course this movie couldn’t be called Jobs because some bad more already took that. Seriously what did people want this movie to be called? MAC? Before 3 Product Launches? Why is it such a bad thing to name your movie the full name of your subject? 
    [/quote]

     

    I’d agree that Jobs is a ‘good’ film in some ways. The screenplay for example, is ‘smart’. And the cast, is excellent.

    It’s Jobs himself. Not that I’m all hepped up to “judge” someone else for the lives they’ve lived….maybe I’ll be sitting next to him in the front row of er, “hell”…..personally, I am no fan of Danny Boyle and I didnt care for Steve Jobs as a man. But, I saw the film.  Was I disappointed when the film “flopped”? No; surprised is more like it.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198221

    I have spoken to many friends, and when I asked them why they didn’t go see Steve Jobs the main answer I get is “it sounds too similar to Jobs with Ashton Kutcher.”

    I find it odd the marketing team/filmmakers couldn’t find a more creative title for the movie then just the name of the Apple CEO. After all, films like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game center around famous innovators, yet they had catchier titles.

    I am wondering if this had been given a more creative name, if audiences would have flocked more? Or was it just simply not an interesting concept?

    I also find it a bit of a letdown that none of the three main events focused in the story center around the iPhone. They’re all pre-2000. I would have thought they would have at least given us some of how Jobs was towards the end of his life.

     

    lol Jas….

    how about:

    See Ya Later Apple Baby

    Front Row of Hell

    How to Stab Your Friends and Family With One Easy Prick

    The Virtue of Stealing, A Homage to Ayn Rand

    Dodge Taxes My Way…Or Else….

    How To Blow Up Your Teacher into Five Easy Pieces

    Ten Easy Ways to Kill and Maim With EMF’s

    Let’s Give Geniuses a Really Really Bad Name

     

    These may have done better perhaps.

     

     

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    KyleBailey
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198223

    The Social Network was about a guy who made a website. Steve Jobs is about a guy who made a computer/iPhones. Why the comparison aside from Sorkin? It’s not like it is the biopic of the guy who made Myspace. What would you have named it instead? This guy made your iPhone, see this movie? 

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198225

    A final one:

    Bastard Out of California.

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Asgaroth
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 1st, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198226

    I agree that “Steve Jobs” was a very bad choice to title the biopic, but I don’t think that another title would have improven its performance at the box office; people would still realize hat it was a Jobs biopic and their sentiments towards the movie would have been the same. The title-effect would have been very marginal. 

    I really can’t explain why “Steve Jobs” sounds bad for a movie title, it just … sounds awkward. I imagine like a teacher taking attendance and calling one of the students name. But using just the name or just the surname makes a significant difference. That’s the way many biopics have gone:

    “Lincoln” vs “Abraham Lincoln”
    “Nixon” vs “Richard Nixon”
    “Hitchcock” vs “Alfred Hitchcock”

    For me one of the only biopics that uses the full name of the character and doesn’t sound weird was “Erin Brockovich”…

    ReplyCopy URL
    Tom O’Neil
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    May 13th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198227

    Yes, the title sunk this film. B-O-R-I-N-G. Where’s the jism, sizzle and salesmanship?

    Who would’ve seen “The Social Network” if it was titled “Mark Zuckerberg”?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Marcus Dixon
    Keymaster
    Joined:
    Jun 12th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #198228

    Love this topic Jason, as it’s something I’ve wondered, too. I think “Steve Jobs” is a terrible title. I’m not sure what a great alternative would have been, but what they went with was a stinker.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
Reply To: Would Steve Jobs done better at box-office with different title??

You can use BBCodes to format your content.
Your account can't use Advanced BBCodes, they will be stripped before saving.

Similar Topics
Beastialg - Oct 19, 2017
Movies
AviChri... - Oct 18, 2017
Movies