Why these two Steve Jobs biopics are not the same

Convinced Jobs was made solely because Matt Whiteley saw a photo of young Steve Jobs and thought it was a photo of Ashton Kutcher. I've been there. We've all been there.

Can't believe you're finally talking about my favorite 60s musician

As a kid I always thought it was fascinating that we got two Steve Jobs biopics in the span of two years.

I like how Zen the Steve Jobs (2015) movie was. The 3 Acts were obvious, the 5 conflicts were also obvious, and even the theme of seeing what is happening behind the curtain as symbolic metaphor for peering into what made Steve Jobs ticked was beyond obvious. And because of its simplistic, artistic direction.... it felt like a creation of Steve Jobs himself.

I really hope Steve Jobs (2015) becomes more well-known as a fantastic movie as the years go on. The film and Michael Fassbender as an actor have been so underrated for too long.

I truly think that the Boyle/Sorkin movie choosing to only focus on a few very key moments in Jobs’ life and career and tell the stories of those moments as thoroughly as possible is a much more engaging formula than a cradle to grave biopic. Honestly, my favorite biopics of the last few years have been ones that have put unique spins on the genre (Jackie being a very internal and introspective character study about Jackie Kennedy’s life directly before and after the JFK assassination, Rocketman turning Elton John’s life into a lavish movie musical)

Seth Rogan as Woz was a genius casting. Adored that film so much, it’s in the top twenty films for me beyond even the biopic genre.

I like to think that Michael Fassbinder's performance was similar to that of Meryl Streep's in "The Devil Wears Prada". In the book,Miranda Priestly was v. shouty & neurotic but in the film version she was quietly menacing & much more nuanced which worked perfectly for that medium 👌

I don't think it's a coincidence that two biopics you (correctly) point to as the best examples of how good and artistic the genre can be (this and Love and Mercy), approach their stories by looking at a small number of moments in time, as opposed to attempting to sum up the totality of a life. To me it feels like the micro stories tell you more about the person than the macro, however counterintuitive that idea feels. Plus, why would you even bother making a 'traditional' biopic when Walk Hard The Dewey Cox Story exists and is great.

I absolutely love your biopic reviews. You've completely changed my mind on how someone's story should be told and I can't thank you enough for your valuable opinions

I completely agree that it doesn't really matter how much the actor looks like the person, but I do find it absolutely mind blowing how much Ashton Kutcher looks like young Steve Jobs.

Although the Kutcher version did not receive as much critical acclaim, I can’t help but think that Ashton was never given the credit he deserved for how accurate his portrayal of Steve was. He absolutely nailed Steve’s voice and mannerisms in a way Michael didn’t. But as you pointed out, Ashton’s movie emphasised the ‘wiki accuracy’ whereas Michael was more captivating as he was clearly leaning into other darker aspects of Steve’s life for his performance. Loved both films.

This was really well made! I know you only did it to avoid copyright claims, but I actually love the way you cut between your own monologue and clips from the movie. Well done!

Wow, that Danny Boyle interview clip really sold me on the whole movie’s approach. He’s right. Steve Jobs whole mantra was “think different”, and they embodied that beautifully in the film by portraying the themes and key feelings that sum up Job’s life. Rather than checking boxes, it becomes, like you said, an impressionist painting that can deliver more truth than a photograph.

While I tend to think Jobs was pretentious and up his own a**, Boyle/Sorkin really created something captivating. I honestly enjoyed it, top to bottom. It cuts the “worship” bullsht of the Kutcher movie, and really delivers on character. If you’re going to make a movie about one man, character is the one thing you really need to nail down.

I watched the Fassbender movie during my elementary years with my father. At the time I couldn't understand anything that was happening during those crucial moments, but the performance and intensity of each scene kept me immensely invested. I felt like I had followed Steve's progression and character development and grew a emotional relationship with the cast, with the film only being two hours long. The character study is phenomenal. Great video analysis.

I always knew I vastly preferred the Boyle film, but never could quite articulate what made it so much more compelling. I think this really nails it flawlessly.

I saw “Jobs” around when it came out. My mom ended up having such a negative impression of him that she said she would never buy an Apple product again; then she felt bad when she realized he had just died.

Great screenplay, great filmography, great editing and great storytelling. I'm not talking about the movies though, I'm talking about the video. This is truely beautiful. You just earned yourself a new subscriber! Shout out from Brazil!

"None of it happened, but it's all true" I feel like that sentence sums up so much