> after Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale passed on the title role, it lacked a major star, limiting its commercial prospects
> Having a DiCaprio or a Robert Downey Jr. in the title role may have broadened “Steve Jobs'” appeal.
Fassbender came out looking like Ed Harris. Audiences want to see Jobs in his prime, as Ashton Kutcher played it. Nothing to do with a "big name actor" and everything about sex appeal. Apple has always been about image and the movie is no different. The fact that the sexy version of Jobs was already done is why it failed and the hand wringing in this article looks idiotic. Everyone considers a 20$ ticket to the new Jobs a wasteful risk, despite hearing how existing mediocre fall films are doing. Quit putting out schlock and your art-film remakes might do better. They certainly won't be hits, either way.
> after Leonardo DiCaprio and Christian Bale passed on the title role, it lacked a major star, limiting its commercial prospects
> Having a DiCaprio or a Robert Downey Jr. in the title role may have broadened “Steve Jobs'” appeal.
Fassbender came out looking like Ed Harris. Audiences want to see Jobs in his prime, as Ashton Kutcher played it. Nothing to do with a "big name actor" and everything about sex appeal. Apple has always been about image and the movie is no different. The fact that the sexy version of Jobs was already done is why it failed and the hand wringing in this article looks idiotic. Everyone considers a 20$ ticket to the new Jobs a wasteful risk, despite hearing how existing mediocre fall films are doing. Quit putting out schlock and your art-film remakes might do better. They certainly won't be hits, either way.