If the independent film with Ashton Kutcher to play Jobs isn’t enough, then here’s another Jobs film that stands a better chance of catching critical acclaim.
Academy Award-winning screenwriter Aaron Sorkin has signed on to write a film based on the life of Steve Jobs, according to an announcement made today by Sony Pictures and posted on Deadline.
Sorkin is set to adapt “Steve Jobs,” the authorized biography of the late Apple tycoon written by Walter Isaacson, former CEO of CNN and managing editor of TIME. Published in October 2011, shortly after its subject’s death from cancer, the book became an instant international bestseller. It was critically acclaimed upon its release, but its protractedness was an issue for some readers. Sorkin would have to condense more than 600 pages worth of interviews with and insights about Jobs in order to come up with material well-suited for a two-hour movie.
And I, as well as my fellow Sorkinites the world over, don’t have doubts that he ever could. He’s done a fantastic job adapting “The Accidental Billionaires,” Ben Mezrich’s rather awfully written story about the founding of Facebook, into “The Social Network,” for which he won an Oscar in 2011. Entrusted to a scribe whose impressive résumé includes “The West Wing,” “Moneyball,” and the upcoming HBO drama “The Newsroom,” “Steve Jobs” is in more than capable hands.»
I reckon the more Jobs films the better. He’s a tough subject, so it will be easy to disappoint Steve’s fans, some tech pundits, geeks everywhere, and a few everyday people who are not obsessed with Apple. With another film in the works, chances are more likely that one Steve Jobs film will be worth watching.
Over the last year or so, the filmmaking geeks have had to make a tough choice: did they want to use Apple’s Final Cut Pro editing suite, or the Adobe Creative film related suite for their productions.
This was no small or easy choice. I was right in the thick of it. The Internet was all a buzz when Final Cut Pro X was released on the Mac App Store. For the record, I chose to stick with Apple’s pro software, and here’s why.
Apple was there at the beginning of the PC. They technically created the personal computer, then other software and hardware developers hijacked Apple’s ideas. I don’t mind saying that I like “the original.” I appreciate knowing the products I use come from developers that are willing to take great risks; developers, like Apple, that are truly creative and shake things up. Apple didn’t know the original Macintosh would work, let alone sell. But they believed in it, and they saw to it the invention came to market for other like-minded people that would appreciate the same sort of computing experience. As it turned out, there were a lot of people that appreciated the Macintosh, and the naysayers ultimately immitated the Mac whether they cared for it or not.
Flash forward to the iPod. Apple invented the iPod—not the mp3 player, but they reinvented the concept and knocked one out of the park with the iPod and iTunes. They essentially re-wrote the way music is delivered, and the way music is played, and the way music is enjoyed. Others are imitators at best, and as we all know, Zunes and the like can’t match the iPod.
Then there is the iPhone, and there is the iPad. Enough said.
My point with the back stories is to show the pattern in Apple’s product deliveries. They produce solid gear and software in spite of the critics and their sometimes outlandish criticism for Apple’s simplistically. Simplicity in Apple’s case is genius. Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads stand as testaments to Apple’s standard for all they do—they don’t just represent their consumer level products; they are the poster children for how Apple creates and offers all of their products.
But there are many skeptics, and almost all of them couldn’t believe that Apple’s pro software would compare well with Adobe’s. Well, they are sorely wrong.
I’ve used Macs and PCs. I’ve used almost all of the Adobe Creative Suite apps at one time or other. But professionally I’ve stuck by Final Cut Pro because it is the original. FCP is the app that reinvented editing and post-effects as we know it.
While FC X may look easy and simple to use, many pros figured it wouldn’t be robust. To be sure, the first release of Final Cut X lacked features that many broadcast professionals really desire. Without their satisfaction, FC X didn’t stand a chance in the pro market.
But now, about a year after FC X was released, we see a different picture. Apple stuck with it, and the professional tools that were missing are all added to the most up-to-date version of Final Cut.
Apple usually gets it right. They usually are the originators—or capable discoverers—of great tools and new software standards. They re-invent all the time. That’s what Apple does, and that’s what Final Cut Pro demonstrates.
But re-inventing editing as we know it in the 21st century came with a price. Many of the FCP 7 and FCP 6 users jumped ship when X was released. I understand pros are a cantankerous bunch, and as difficult as they are to please, Adobe and even the likes of Avid had tools to offer that out-performed the first release of FCP X.
This is regrettable not for Apple, but for the suckers that straddled the fence and went with Adobe’s suite in spite of their intuition telling them they should stick with Final Cut’s suite and give it a chance. Pros are, like all people, subject to peer pressure. There is a lot of pride to go around among filmmakers. And they take their reputations way too seriously. Well, for those that straddled the fence and turned to the dark side in the end… switching to Adobe’s suite entirely probably cost them a lot, because I really believe there are a great number of Premiere users today that only a short while ago were loyal to Final Cut that needlessly spent time learning Adobe’s gargantuan editing systems all for not.
Here’s a demonstration of one brilliant yet deceptively simple execution of a professional production in the works using Motion 5 (part of the Final Cut suite):
Final Cut’s community, as we know it today, is still growing. There are new users, and there are many that made the switch from FC 7 to FC X. Then, there are even many that prefer to use Final Cut Pro X in addition to Adobe’s Premiere! Why? Because they find the grass is always greener on the other side. What they overlook is that it’s also costly, time-consuming, and mind-boggling.
Motion 5 and Final Cut Pro X make a great team. They are most-definitely professional grade, and they get the job done where it counts. Are they the most expensive, feature rich, extraterrestrial apps known to filmmakers? No. But neither is Premiere. Don’t you know there is always a bigger fish? It is said Avid trumps Premiere, and that Premiere trumps Final Cut. Well, quite frankly, I think the small fry is easier to handle than the whales, and I am doing just fine with Final Cut’s set of powerful editing tools.
Not to mention the great plugins you can get at affordable prices from the growing developer communities:
Adobe offers a great package, and I know it’s great for a great number of editors. My point is that it’s not for everyone, and Final Cut Pro X is certainly a professional option that’s easy to learn, cost-effective, well-supported, and at the cusp of everything film as we will know it in the 21st century.
Oh, and did I mention that Premiere CS6 is imitating Final Cut Pro X? Children, that’s called ‘hypocrisy’.
If you are intrigued with Final Cut X, but haven’t take the plunge, or if you have the app and want help to get started, then check out Izzy’s free online tutorials. You won’t be disappointed.
Apple founder Steve Jobs died more than seven months ago. All kinds of people are lining up to hijack his memory for their own purposes. It’s time to stop. [...] As in the art world, Jobs’ untimely death has created a speculative bubble in all things Jobs. That’s the only reason this stuff is emerging. [...] There’s so much to be learned from the life of Steve Jobs. But publishing out-of-context, tasteless and unfair material from the past is nothing more than a demonstration that we haven’t learned.»
The exploits are annoying, but they will not last. Ultimately, Steve’s memory is sealed in the minds of Apple fans that knew a time when Steve was at the helm. Who cares what losers show and tell? They will be forgotten.
This is the best essay I’ve read all year. The article posted on the Wall Street Journal’s site is carefully researched and jam-packed with insightful studies filled with undeniable facts. And not only that, but I’d say that even the essay by itself, written by Jonah Lehrer, is exceptional writing for the web.
Here are a few of my favorite excerpts:
We tend to assume that experts are the creative geniuses in their own fields. But big breakthroughs often depend on the naive daring of outsiders. For prompting creativity, few things are as important as time devoted to cross-pollination with fields outside our areas of expertise.
I live by the statement above. I’m always sharing my designs with others that have little to do with professional design. They usually give me as much insight into the creative work as other artistic professionals. People who don’t think with a focus like a professional designer see things that designers don’t catch.
Later in the essay…:
… this raises an obvious question: If different kinds of creative problems benefit from different kinds of creative thinking, how can we ensure that we’re thinking in the right way at the right time? When should we daydream and go for a relaxing stroll, and when should we keep on sketching and toying with possibilities?
The good news is that the human mind has a surprising natural ability to assess the kind of creativity we need. Researchers call these intuitions “feelings of knowing,” and they occur when we suspect that we can find the answer, if only we keep on thinking. Numerous studies have demonstrated that, when it comes to problems that don’t require insights, the mind is remarkably adept at assessing the likelihood that a problem can be solved—knowing whether we’re getting “warmer” or not, without knowing the solution.
The human intuition is a fascinating subject to me. I know that this article and its sited studies are strictly focusing on the physical (biological) condition, but I do believe that intuitive feelings and thoughts are also influenced by the human spirit. There’s much to be said for man’s “heart andsoul.” Without the spiritual quality, we might not understand transcendence. And without knowing transcendence, I doubt we would place importance on creativity. Anyway… back to the article:
Steve Jobs famously declared that “creativity is just connecting things.” Although we think of inventors as dreaming up breakthroughs out of thin air, Mr. Jobs was pointing out that even the most far-fetched concepts are usually just new combinations of stuff that already exists. Under Mr. Jobs’s leadership, for instance, Apple didn’t invent MP3 players or tablet computers—the company just made them better, adding design features that were new to the product category.
And it isn’t just Apple. The history of innovation bears out Mr. Jobs’s theory. The Wright Brothers transferred their background as bicycle manufacturers to the invention of the airplane; their first flying craft was, in many respects, just a bicycle with wings. Johannes Gutenberg transformed his knowledge of wine presses into a printing machine capable of mass-producing words. Or look at Google: Larry Page and Sergey Brin came up with their famous search algorithm by applying the ranking method used for academic articles (more citations equals more influence) to the sprawl of the Internet.
Please take a few minutes to read the arcticle’s entirety. If you do, you will understand me better. I feel that it is an example of how I process information and make connections. It’s a web of ideas that influence a complex answer to “what is creativity, and how do we use it?”
I’m working with Stewart Adams at American Vision to release this ongoing web video show in early February. This video just explains what Movieology is all about and that it is coming soon. I’d like to know what you think!
For more of an explanation of our/my worldview mindset, I’m a Christian and study science, religion, and philosophy continuously. One great way Christians often overlook to study such things is in watching movies. I rarely watch movies passively; I always want to learn something about the real world if there is something to be had about the real world by considering the worldviews in fiction. Often, fiction can explain truths better than day to day life. Non-fiction can lack the human element that fiction can provide to improve understanding of reality.
While I am a worldview enthusiast, I don’t just appreciate the Christian worldview. I study other worldviews and why they believe what they believe. I want to help others see that Christianity makes sense of the real world, whereas other worldviews do not with an objective evaluation of reality.
So, if you oppose my view, that’s all right—I’m not trying to “convert” you. So feel free to let the open discussions begin (while using movies to start the topical worldview discussions).
With the Bible as our guide to good storytelling, and just what is and isn’t permissible morality in stories, let’s take another look at how to interpret morality issues we face in fiction.
Some well-meaning conservative people wish that fiction would lack immorality—well, immorality that they don’t have a tolerance for. As I pointed out in the first part, the Bible has lots of immorality that no good Christian should take a liking to. Yet, the Bible depicts many graphic details of sin and immorality of all kinds that we should be on guard for. As we think about the meaning underlying fiction we either get on television, the theatre, internet (web shows), or novels, we should discern what the moral compass is of the fiction; whether the author/filmmaker is consistent with his own morality. If he wants to objectify women in an evolutionary way (do whatever you want with your body—who cares?) but doesn’t want to take a consistent view of evolutionary thinking as it relates to politics (Indiana Jones is opposed to Nazism just because ‘it ain’t right’) then he’s picking and choosing his morality out of thin air. There isn’t a basis for it except personal opinion, and that is not concrete or authoritative. Continue reading →
Building on a proper understanding of the genres of fiction, and a thorough appreciation for the whole of stories and there individual scenes, let us look now at the culmination of morality in fictional works to interpret the intent — message/meaning, if you will — of a story.
Morality is one of the stickiest issues for religious people to cypher whether a story is a good one to read or watch. We get lost in the minutiae wondering about the suitable age range for audiences; whether the story is “Christian” enough; whether the villain’s worldview overwhelms that of the hero’s; we total up the number of expletives in the first act; we count the number of square inches on our TVs that are covered in a splash of blood in a bit of violence…. Continue reading →
If the independent film with Ashton Kutcher to play Jobs isn’t enough, then here’s another Jobs film that stands a better chance of catching critical acclaim.
Over the last year or so, the filmmaking geeks have had to make a tough choice: did they want to use Apple’s Final Cut Pro editing suite, or the Adobe Creative film related suite for their productions.
Ashton looks like Steve. 
