Michael Fassbender

[gemini582]

These days probably often. Movies are being pressured to fill seats at the theatre. Example, Leonardo made the Great Gatsby. Who would have thought that it would be a hit. It was a big hit because of him.

I think that is the reality of an actor today. Either stick with small films and be happy or go the blockbuster route.

It's interesting there's always talk about how everyone wants to work with him but then you see he's still considered a big risk. There has to be a push for him to up his profile.

I don't think Michael is right for the film & I wish he'd drop out, but I don't think he will. I also doubt that Universal and Rudin are going to drop the project, even with the crazy bad publicity. Sony's taking most of the heat for all of this.



Every time he's up for a major role, in my opinion.

This thing is a mess and he should drop it but I can see how those emails might make him want to prove that he's right for the part.

 

[jlactofree]

I don't think Michael is right for the film & I wish he'd drop out, but I don't think he will. I also doubt that Universal and Rudin are going to drop the project, even with the crazy bad publicity. Sony's taking most of the heat for all of this.


Every time he's up for a major role, in my opinion.

I don't think he's right for the role either.

 

[jlactofree]

It's interesting there's always talk about how everyone wants to work with him but then you see he's still considered a big risk. There has to be a push for him to up his profile.


This thing is a mess and he should drop it but I can see how those emails might make him want to prove that he's right for the part.

I think Michael is considered a risk because of The Counselor. I think that was his chance to prove he could be a leading man and it didn't make close to the amount the studio wanted. And I know people will say it wasn't his fault that Ridley dropped the ball big time, but Michael was the headliner. I think if an actor is ready to take a leap to star status, it's very risky. Jennifer Lawrence comes to mind. Indie films (winter bone, AH, Silverlining Playbook) to Hunger Games franchise. She succeeded to that level.
I think indies have a safer/ less risk regarding profit.
I don't count movies like XMen because they have several major stars to draw box office.
Again, worldwide profit has become very important.

I would like Michael to dabble in TV again and indies.
Many major stars are doing both, increasing their awareness and following/star power. Like Benedict Cumberbatch. Mr Sherlock.

 

[mchris55]

This is really going to be a difficult decision. I don't envy him at all. His beef is with Sorkin and Sony. The picture is now at Universal with Boyle directing. It appears, for now, that Universal and Boyle are behind him. His managers and agents undoubtedly have gone HAM at Sorkin and Sony over this mess. And you may even throw in Pitt, because he has worked with Rudin in the past and now their nonsense is tainting his wife. So, after taking Rudin out over Angie, I'm sure he dropped some mess over Fassbender as well. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

So does Michael cut bait with an FU to this nonsense or does he brings the fire and put out an FU performance, so yes, everyone will KNOW ( even prominent writers who want to act like they don't know) who he is. Tough decisions, because after this, everyone will know who he is.

 

[Reborn]

What I find the most difficult to understand is why they feel another "Jobs" movie is necessary.
Its an assumption that because Steve Jobs was a technology Icon that people want to see his life depicted in film over and over again.
If you read film forums and various blogs, the consistent message is why bother? Its too soon, from the last movie and from his death in all fairness for the vast majority of potential audiences to appreciate any such story.
Its rumoured that even Steve Jobs own family don't want this film made.
Maybe I am wrong but I can only speak for myself and people who I have spoken to and not one person wants to see this film at the box office. "its the old I might watch it if it comes on TV/Netflix etc.
Someone mentioned that these film execs, studio bosses and writers are very removed from reality, and its absolutely true. If they did a little Market research they would probably find that this could be a really disappointing investment.

My concern in Micheal's involvement is that its actually really risky for him. It could be a well scripted film (although Sorkin's arrogance does not convince me it will be at all), however if the audience is disinterested due to "Jobs" overload it will not do well at the box office, which will reflect on him, and he could be further labelled as unable to carry a lead.

I also have concerns about his accents, he is a great actor, but his American accents need a lot of work, in Shame and 12YAS they were not great. I have not seen the Counsellor to compare.
In doing Steve he would have to nail it and if production starts in Jan its doubtful he would have time to prepare properly.

Essentially this is a battle of ego's his included which is not a great place to start. I know most feel his time has come but are we convinced this film is it? and could it do a little more harm than good for his career?

 

[Reborn]

Originally Posted by mollie12
I don't think Michael is right for the film & I wish he'd drop out, but I don't think he will. I also doubt that Universal and Rudin are going to drop the project, even with the crazy bad publicity. Sony's taking most of the heat for all of this.

Jlactofree
Every time he's up for a major role, in my opinion.

I don't think he's right for the role either.


Sadly I think your right, I read Tom Cruise was considered for the role (I am not a fan of Tom whatsoever) and I hate to say it but I think Sorkin was right. Tom would have captured the duality of Jobs being a charismatic person and also a douche very well. The only issue I saw is the height, which they always sort for Tom anyway.
I think Sorkin conceded as he couldn't get who he wanted to do the film (Cruise and DiCaprio etc) on board hence he starts his mail with "f*uck it! Not "ok you were right he is the man for the Job" (pun intended)

 

[jlactofree]

What I find the most difficult to understand is why they feel another "Jobs" movie is necessary.
Its an assumption that because Steve Jobs was a technology Icon that people want to see his life depicted in film over and over again.
If you read film forums and various blogs, the consistent message is why bother? Its too soon, from the last movie and from his death in all fairness for the vast majority of potential audiences to appreciate any such story.
Its rumoured that even Steve Jobs own family don't want this film made.
Maybe I am wrong but I can only speak for myself and people who I have spoken to and not one person wants to see this film at the box office. "its the old I might watch it if it comes on TV/Netflix etc.
Someone mentioned that these film execs, studio bosses and writers are very removed from reality, and its absolutely true. If they did a little Market research they would probably find that this could be a really disappointing investment.

My concern in Micheal's involvement is that its actually really risky for him. It could be a well scripted film (although Sorkin's arrogance does not convince me it will be at all), however if the audience is disinterested due to "Jobs" overload it will not do well at the box office, which will reflect on him, and he could be further labelled as unable to carry a lead.

I also have concerns about his accents, he is a great actor, but his American accents need a lot of work, in Shame and 12YAS they were not great. I have not seen the Counsellor to compare.
In doing Steve he would have to nail it and if production starts in Jan its doubtful he would have time to prepare properly.

Essentially this is a battle of ego's his included which is not a great place to start. I know most feel his time has come but are we convinced this film is it? and could it do a little more harm than good for his career?

Very well said. I agree 100%.

 

[BagBerry13]

What I find the most difficult to understand is why they feel another "Jobs" movie is necessary.
Its an assumption that because Steve Jobs was a technology Icon that people want to see his life depicted in film over and over again.
If you read film forums and various blogs, the consistent message is why bother? Its too soon, from the last movie and from his death in all fairness for the vast majority of potential audiences to appreciate any such story.
Its rumoured that even Steve Jobs own family don't want this film made.
Maybe I am wrong but I can only speak for myself and people who I have spoken to and not one person wants to see this film at the box office. "its the old I might watch it if it comes on TV/Netflix etc.
Someone mentioned that these film execs, studio bosses and writers are very removed from reality, and its absolutely true. If they did a little Market research they would probably find that this could be a really disappointing investment.

Essentially this is a battle of ego's his included which is not a great place to start. I know most feel his time has come but are we convinced this film is it? and could it do a little more harm than good for his career?

Couldn't have said it better.
That was my first reaction as well. Why bother with a movie? Maybe it's my disinterest in anything behind-the-scenes of technology stuff but I don't see how this movie could be interesting. Yes, I use Apple but do I need a movie about how the guy came up with it?

 

[Underoos!]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I think this version is supposed to mainly focus on Jobs' speeches. Sounds like a winner to me!

 

[Morgane]

I don't think Michael is right for the film & I wish he'd drop out, but I don't think he will. I also doubt that Universal and Rudin are going to drop the project, even with the crazy bad publicity. Sony's taking most of the heat for all of this.



Every time he's up for a major role, in my opinion.

It's not bad publicity,now there will be people who will want to see what all the fuss is about.. a great script,a super producer who broke with Sony only because SP head Amy Pascal didn't want to back up a project with such a great script,all this because she was toooo scared of Angelina Jolie.. It's just great publicity for the film. Sony.. well,that's another matter..
I don't think he's right either. He will not drop out,I can already figure Sorkin calling him yesterday to clean up.

Fassbender is not a "movie star",whatever today this means,Tom Hardy is not a movie star,Cumberbatch can't open a movie alone,at least without Weinstein supporting him.. None of them,and Fassbender is still above them career-wise, is recognizable like Pitt,Robert DJ,Depp, but at the same time none of the old generation of so-called movie stars can't guarantee nothing,now. Cruise has huge flops,Depp has huge flops when he's not in the Pirates franchise,Depp-Jolie was another flop.. Just to name a few.How many people go to see a RDJ's film when he's not Sherlock or Iron Man? How many people did go to see Jlaw's Serena? I've seen many times Bale being compared to Fassbender (career's choices),and actually Bale was the first choice for Sorkin after Cruise,I suppose.. Bale has a longer career,but what really makes a difference to the way they are perceived is Bale's involvement in TDK trilogy. But,again,how many people did go to see Out of the Furnace the last year?How many people Bale,who is considered a bigger name than Fassbender,draw only with his name attached?I think that movie franchises are giving some distorted perceptions..
Actually I don't even know what can be considered a "major role",these days. Is the leading role in a Paul Thomas Anderson' film or a Malick's film a major role? Fassbeder could be among the first casting choices,but this is not mainstream stuff,even with Pitt attached.. What is highly regarded within the film industry is not marketable most of the time,what is marketable can ruin a good actor's reputation. There are mainstream movies whit a lot of box-office potential even without big-names,there are mainstream movies with potential helped by a big name (Pitt's WWZ),there are maintream movies with potential who are flops even with a big-name (Cruise's American BO,even if in his case his antics play a big role). There's no rule anymore,IMO.

 

[Morgane]

I think Sorkin conceded as he couldn't get who he wanted to do the film (Cruise and DiCaprio etc) on board hence he starts his mail with "f*uck it! Not "ok you were right he is the man for the Job" (pun intended)

What is very sad is that they (Pascal,Rudin,Sorkin) don't care about what every actor could bring to the role with his individuality. Bale,Fassbender,DiCaprio are all very different. They were just looking for some buzz.. Actually Amy Pascal in that exchange with DeLuca was right when she wrote that this film needs just a stunning performance and a good cast (I'm not sure about Michael)because if the script is SOOO brilliant,as everyone is saying,a big super name is not necessary..
TSN was a starless film,probably Sorkin doesn't remember the time when he had just Eisenberg and Timberlake as super big stars..
Actually,if the script is SOOO brilliant,IMO the true problem here is not the big name,but its target. TSN could appeal to a younger audience,I don't know if this is the case.. with or without big name. This would be sad if Michael will be involved.
Initially I thought Sorkin was being sarcastic and *****ing about Boyle who didn't want Cruise,but it's likely he didn't really know Michael's work.. these self-centered people live in a bubble ( ''he will be nominated for everything'' ,as if he wasn't already) and he could just be one of those ampas members who don't see what they vote..
If he didn't know his work,I'm sure he saw it and was sincere when he said that Michael is great,but these people want everything.. buzz and critical acclaim. I'm sure he look at Michael's track record with critics and suddenly it became a very good idea.

 

[karma70]

What really confuses me is why Sony found it so difficult to finance. It sounds like a zero-budget movie. The story takes place back stage at three of Apples biggest presentations. The only thing they need apart from the actors is a couple of rooms and a hallway. Even so they wanted Tom Cruise, who's fee is probably bigger than the cost of the movie it self.

To me it seems like Pascal was staling and did'nt want to make the movie. First by makeing it difficult for them to hire Fincher, and then by not making an effort to finance it when Fassbender was cast. If you read the e-mails it is clear that it's Rudin who makes a deal with Universal and ask Pascal to release the film. He knew it would never be made at Sony and sold it to Universal. My guess is that Danny Boyle now will make a small-budget film. Foucising on the script itself and the quality of the actors, instead of on big stars.

 

[Singra]

What is very sad is that they (Pascal,Rudin,Sorkin) don't care about what every actor could bring to the role with his individuality. Bale,Fassbender,DiCaprio are all very different. They were just looking for some buzz.. Actually Amy Pascal in that exchange with DeLuca was right when she wrote that this film needs just a stunning performance and a good cast (I'm not sure about Michael)because if the script is SOOO brilliant,as everyone is saying,a big super name is not necessary..
TSN was a starless film,probably Sorkin doesn't remember the time when he had just Eisenberg and Timberlake as super big stars..
Actually,if the script is SOOO brilliant,IMO the true problem here is not the big name,but its target. TSN could appeal to a younger audience,I don't know if this is the case.. with or without big name. This would be sad if Michael will be involved.
Initially I thought Sorkin was being sarcastic and *****ing about Boyle who didn't want Cruise,but it's likely he didn't really know Michael's work.. these self-centered people live in a bubble ( ''he will be nominated for everything'' ,as if he wasn't already) and he could just be one of those ampas members who don't see what they vote..
If he didn't know his work,I'm sure he saw it and was sincere when he said that Michael is great,but these people want everything.. buzz and critical acclaim. I'm sure he look at Michael's track record with critics and suddenly it became a very good idea.

TSN wasn't starless, Fincher was the movie's real star, he also has the power to get the cast he wants.. not every director is as fortunate.

Sorkin and his merry band do come across as major d-bags in the emails but I've heard many writers, directors and producers talk about the pressure of the bottom line. They've said it takes so much to get a film approved and made that it's hard not to think about how it's going to test and how the movies going to sell during the writing/development phase. To have a movie fall apart after years of development because it's going to be a hard sell can make anyone a little cynical.

What I find the most difficult to understand is why they feel another "Jobs" movie is necessary.
Its an assumption that because Steve Jobs was a technology Icon that people want to see his life depicted in film over and over again.
If you read film forums and various blogs, the consistent message is why bother? Its too soon, from the last movie and from his death in all fairness for the vast majority of potential audiences to appreciate any such story.
Its rumoured that even Steve Jobs own family don't want this film made.
Maybe I am wrong but I can only speak for myself and people who I have spoken to and not one person wants to see this film at the box office. "its the old I might watch it if it comes on TV/Netflix etc.
Someone mentioned that these film execs, studio bosses and writers are very removed from reality, and its absolutely true. If they did a little Market research they would probably find that this could be a really disappointing investment.

My concern in Micheal's involvement is that its actually really risky for him. It could be a well scripted film (although Sorkin's arrogance does not convince me it will be at all), however if the audience is disinterested due to "Jobs" overload it will not do well at the box office, which will reflect on him, and he could be further labelled as unable to carry a lead.

I also have concerns about his accents, he is a great actor, but his American accents need a lot of work, in Shame and 12YAS they were not great. I have not seen the Counsellor to compare.
In doing Steve he would have to nail it and if production starts in Jan its doubtful he would have time to prepare properly.

Essentially this is a battle of ego's his included which is not a great place to start. I know most feel his time has come but are we convinced this film is it? and could it do a little more harm than good for his career?

So agree with everything you said.

Aside from the whole why are they making this movie I'm also struggling to see Fassbender as Jobs, his American accent has been a problem for me in past movies.

I actually thought Cruise would have been better for the role... he has the intensity, the weirdly hollow personality and physically he could pass more for Jobs than I feel Fassbender could. Cruise is intense in a very American way and Jobs is a quintessentially American character, Fassbender's intensity reads slightly differently... to me anyway.

 

[mollie12]

He's still in Australia?

 

[jlactofree]

He's still in Australia?

So much for him missing the BIFA's because of work.