‘jOBS’ Clip Gets It Totally Wrong Says Apple Co-Founder Steve Wozniak

The Apple executive reveals that the personalities are off in the recently-released clip from Joshua Michael Stern’s biopic.

Last week, Open Road Films released the first clip from jOBS, which made its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival. This scene depicts an early meeting between Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) and Steve Wozniak (Josh Gad) where the discuss the future of personal computers. As it turns out, Steve Wozniak himself viewed the clip, and reveals that there are many things wrong with it, including the fact that it was he who saw the value in personal computers, not Steve Jobs, as depicted movie.

Check out the clip, and then read on for Steve Wozniak's own personal insight.

"Not close...we never had such interaction and roles...I'm not even sure what it's getting at...personalities are very wrong although mine is closer...don't forget that my purpose was inspired by the values of the Homebrew Computer Club along with ideas of the value of such machines and Steve J. wasn't around and didn't attend the club so he was the one learning about such social impact of the future."

He went on to speak more about the Homebrew Computer Club, which was founded in 1975 in Silicon Valley, which included members such as video game pioneer Jerry Lawson, creator of the first cartridge-based video game system, who also developed the software for the Atari 2600. Steve Wozniak revealed that Steve Jobs' loftier ambitions didn't come until much later.

"Totally wrong. Personalities and where the ideas of computers affecting society did not come from Jobs. They inspired me and were widely spoken at the Homebrew Computer Club. Steve came back from Oregon and came to a club meeting and didn't start talking about this great social impact. His idea was to make a $20 PC board and sell it for $40 to help people at the club build the computer I'd given away. Steve came from selling surplus parts at HalTed. He always saw a way to make a quick buck off my designs (this was the 5th time). The lofty talk came much further down the line. I never looked like a professional. We were both kids. Our relationship was so different than what was portrayed. I'm embarrassed but if the movie is fun and entertaining, all the better. Anyone who reads my book iWoz can get a clearer picture."

He went on to say that he hopes the movie is very popular, but he hopes the meaning behind his early ideas is portrayed correctly.

"It's only one clip. The movie should be very popular and I hope it's entertaining. It may be very correct, as well. This is only one clip. But you'll see the direction they are slanting the movie in, just by the dialog style of this script. I never wore a tie back then. I wore blue jeans and the same style blue button-up shirt every day of my life. I was not like a professional in demeanor ever. Here is a reply I gave to someone on Facebook a few minutes ago:

The fact that it didn't happen is unimportant. The important thing is whether the meaning portrayed is correct.

It's ok to make up a dramatic scene but is much better if it sort of happened and had the meaning portrayed. But this is only one short clip of the movie. The entire movie may be very good. But the initial exposure to the social meaning of a technology revolution went in a very different direction in those early times.

A more accurate portrayal would be myself in the Homebrew Computer Club (with Steve Jobs up in another state and not aware of it being inspired by liberal humanist academics from Berkeley and Stanford and other places speaking of these high social goals. I decided then and there to help them reach those goals by designing a computer that was affordable. I gave it away to members of this club to help them. My goal was not money or power. In fact, when Steve came down and came to the club and saw the interest, he did not propose making a computer. Rather, he suggested we make a PC board so that others could build my computer easier. This PC board is just a component, like the ones Steve would sell at Haltek, a surplus electronics store. By the way, the Apple I was the 5th time I designed something just for fun that Steve found a way to turn into money, and the Apple ][ was the 6th time. We always split the proceeds."

We'll have to wait until jOBS is in theaters to find out how Steve Wozniak feels about the entire package. Will it hold the true meaning of this story, or will it veer off the path into fantasy land, portraying Steve Jobs in a less than truthful light.

Jobs was released August 16th, 2013 and stars Ashton Kutcher, Dermot Mulroney, Josh Gad, Lukas Haas, Matthew Modine, J.K. Simmons, Lesley Ann Warren, Ron Eldard. The film is directed by Joshua Michael Stern.

Sources: Gizmodo

Share this story yet?

19 13 1 0 2


Comments (32)

  1. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @thedude-abides Hmm, you'll need an agent to contact his/her people . If you do it without one, more power to you

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  2. thedude-abides

    @bawnian-dexeus Thanks, man. I'm going to take the Tarantinian approach. QT was able to get Reservoir Dogs off the ground by getting Harvey Keitel verbally committed, which got studios interested. My plan of attack is to send the script to the actor I want to play the main character. If I can sell him on the script, studios will follow. Better still, the actor I have in mind has his own production company, so that's another plus. I've still got a way to go before the script's finished, though.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  3. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @thedude-abides Hope you get your script optioned

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  4. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 I agree with you in principle with what you're saying. However, as someone who is in the process of writing a screenplay based on an historical figure, I can tell you that you want to get it right. When you say that screenwriters are not striving to be accurate, that's simply not true.

    I've spent five grueling years tediously researching the life of the subject of my story. The goal is to be as historically accurate as you can without yielding to entertainment. I've said a million times to those in my circle, that the most difficult part of this process is trying to not make it feel like a history lesson.

    Because of the time and research I've put in, the facts are already laid before me; but that's just half the battle. As a writer, it's my job to find that delicate balance so as to, as you say, weave the best yarn. So, yes, in order to do that, some facts have to be elaborated on or taken liberties with in order to make the story more interesting; but, to say that factual accuracies are disregarded entirely for the sake of entertainment, I would argue against.

    For instance, if you knew a conversation or an event took place, but didn't really know the intricacies surrounding what might've been said or how it took place, you would simply use your imagination to fill in the blanks -- but only within the realm of plausibility and consistency as it pertained to what you did know.

    Again, this is the main issue I take as it pertains to our discussion. My thoughts on the quality of TSN vs. the perceived lack of quality with a film like Jobs is a subject that I don't think anyone would disagree with. My issue, and where I disagree, is I believe Sorkin knowingly changed what he changed. There might have been major discrepancies with what actually and factually happened, but they were done knowingly by the writer, all the while maintaining the point and integrity of the story at hand.

    In this instance, the writer clearly introduces a conversation between two people at a point in there lives that never took place. Granted, as much as it should, that doesn't bother me either. What bothers me is Wozniak coming out and basically saying that, not only did no such conversation ever take place, but the entire meaning of the conversation was obviously lost upon the writer to begin with. So you see, it goes past taking creative liberties for the sake of entertainment to a blatant lack of understanding for the material at hand.

    It'd be like Spielberg introducing a conversation Lincoln had in the film about slavery that not only didn't happen, but in a way that was completely, contextually, and historically different from Lincoln's own point-of-view, which by rights, would make it improperly researched. Can the same be said for TSN? People can nitpick all they want, but Sorkin knew what he was changing when he changed it. This guy didn't. That's the difference, and that's the point I'm making.

    Again, I go back to Wozniak's quotes: "It's ok to make up a dramatic scene but is much better if it sort of happened and had the meaning portrayed. ...the initial exposure to the social meaning of a technology revolution went in a very different direction in those early times."

    I'm not trying to prove you wrong or get you to change your mind or anything like that. I've agreed with pretty much all of what you said aside from this one issue. Hopefully I stated my case better in this instance. If not, I'm open to your rebuttal, and we can simply agree to disagree :)

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  5. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @ejk1 Well, I'm drawing it from a couple of scenes. Haven't actually seen TSN for personal reasons

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  6. ejk1

    @bawnian-dexeus I don't know, but that's how it came off, didn't it, lol

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  7. Bawnian©-Dexeus

    @ejk1 Was it intentional for Sorkin to make Zuckerberg a complete *sshole?

    2 years agoby @bawnian-dexeusFlag

  8. ejk1

    @thedude-abides My thought is very simply that screenwriters are paid to make the best story possible. And so, in regards to fact-based films, they take liberties. It is true that some are executed much better than others, for a myriad of reasons, and I think this is the crux of your position. You're talking about the quality of the film that has been released (TSN) versus the potential lack of quality in the film yet to be released (jOBS). But this isn't the point I'm raising at all. Wozniak says that jOBS is inconsistent with what really happened; the same case has been made against TSN on multiple fronts. There are so many films that this can be said of, and the reason is simple: the screenwriters are not striving to be accurate, but rather to tell a good story. Sorkin's screenplay for TSN was apparently filled with liberties, but he wove a very good yarn. And that's what the screenwriter of jOBS did. Granted, the execution may fall flat, but my point is that their methods are the same towards factual accuracy: they disregard it for the sake of telling the best story they possibly can.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  9. CelluloidDreams


    2 years agoby @2movieguysFlag

  10. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 I think you raise an interesting point. It very well could be he's trashing it simply because he's working with Sorkin on their own film; but, there again, it could just mean that he thinks Jobs is a poorly researched, poorly executed film, and that the one he's working on with Sorkin is going to be better because of the reasons I mentioned throughout this article. Or both.

    His comparisons to TSN don't surprise me, as I think that's the type of film the people behind Jobs were looking to go after, which is why I think people are gonna be letdown by it once it comes out. When you say it's coming from the same place as TSN in its approach and because of how fact-based films are, of themselves, works of fiction, I couldn't agree more. Naturally it's gonna draw comparisons to TSN because of the nature and similarities of the subject matter of both films, like you pointed out.

    The only point of contention I take with that is that TSN is a modern classic by most all accounts, and I think it is so for a reason -- the brilliant acting, writing, and directing that went into the making of the film. My own personal belief is that there wasn't a whole lot of time and research that went into making Jobs. I thought so before because of how fast the movie was rushed into development, and I think so even more now after reading Wozniak's comments.

    Granted, that could just be Wozniak taking sides, but I honestly don't believe that to be the case. Maybe a small part of him, sure; but, in general, I truly believe that his comments in this article and the one in question are a genuine reflection of the way he feels about the movie, or at least what little he's seen of it judging from this clip. Whatever his reasoning, I don't think anyone would argue against the notion that the script and eventual film Sorkin's working on is going to be better than Jobs, so it may just be a question of something as simple as that.

    But what about you? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on all this as well.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  11. ejk1

    @thedude-abides Well, what did you think of it. It basically throws everything Wozniak says above into a questionable light. He wasn't a source for the film, he compared it to TSN, and he could be trashing the film because he is collaborating with Sorkin on their own film, and wants to torpedo this one. What are your thoughts on that?

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  12. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Okay. By all means, please continue.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  13. ejk1

    @thedude-abides I'd like you to read this article I'm giving you the link for, and then I'd like to continue this conversation.


    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  14. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 I agree with everything you're saying, but you just said Saverin was the primary source of Sorkin's research. I would argue that Wozniak is the equivalent of Saverin, being the Apple co-founder, which is why I question the film's credibility.

    Your point about all fact-based films being in a sense works of fiction themselves is 100% accurate. So, in a sense, yes, they're all coming from the same place. But my point, and again where I disagree, is that the writer of Jobs obviously didn't do his homework, like Sorkin did.

    Like @justatadmatt said, if it were this simple to get a comment from Wozniak, then why not just consult him in the first place? That's the difference in TSN and Jobs that I'm referring to. My point is that Sorkin did his homework, and decided to take creative liberties with the screenplay for cinematic purposes only; this guy just flat-out didn't do his homework.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  15. ejk1

    @thedude-abides Sorkin won the Oscar for telling a good story. That doesn't mean it was in any way near the truth. He got help from only one principal source, and that was Saverin. Pretty much everyone else involved says that isn't what happened, and Sorkin himself said, "I don't want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling." That sounds a lot like a blatant disregard for the truth as well. The only real differences is that I see are that this film is inaccurate about a man who is not here to defend himself, leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many, and that storywise, this might not be as good a film as TSN. But just because it isn't as good a film doesn't change the fact that it's coming from the same place as TSN. Oscar or no, both of these "fact-based" films are really works of fiction.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  16. Fry_3000

    Similar to social network on how they basically rewrote people's lives within the Facebook world. But it is a film and they have to make it entertaining as much as possible, if they stuck to fact facts then probably be boring films. Just my opinion

    2 years agoby @Fry-3000Flag

  17. mb11


    2 years agoby @mbrandon11Flag

  18. Corey W.

    Zuckerberg said the same thing when TSN came out. This doesn't decrease my excitement.

    2 years agoby @coreyFlag

  19. thedude-abides

    "The fact that it didn't happen is unimportant. The important thing is whether the meaning portrayed is correct.

    It's ok to make up a dramatic scene but is much better if it sort of happened and had the meaning portrayed. But this is only one short clip of the movie. The entire movie may be very good. But the initial exposure to the social meaning of a technology revolution went in a very different direction in those early times."

    I rest my case.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  20. ChiRep_1

    Guess I was a little late to the race on this debate

    2 years agoby @ChiRep-1Flag

  21. ChiRep_1

    Anyone remember the claims Zuckerberg made about TSN?.. LoL, This movie might turn out to be a disappointment but dismissing its credibility or factual accuracy based off a single clip is just naive

    2 years agoby @ChiRep-1Flag

  22. thedude-abides

    @ejk1 Agree and disagree. I agree that every fact-based film is going to sacrifice some accuracy for the sake of entertainment. I don't know a writer worth his salt who would tell you otherwise.

    Where I disagree with you is in saying it's no different from TSN. Sorkin won an Oscar for his screenplay for Social Network, as I'm sure you know. Whatever truth that got lost in the translation was done so for cinematic purposes, as you alluded to, and not because he didn't do his homework. What we have here is just a blatant disregard for the facts, in my opinion, and nothing more.

    2 years agoby @thedude-abidesFlag

  23. skywise

    Very few historical movies are ever accurate. I expect nothing less or more from the money machine that is Hollywood.

    2 years agoby @skywiseFlag

  24. ejk1

    @thedude-abides It's no different from The Social Network. TSN was taken from one point of view; Zuckerberg did not have any input on the film. As far as the plot not being accurate, Aaron Sorkin, writer of TSN, basically admitted to sacrificing accuracy for entertainment in his plot. That's how it goes for most of these "fact-based" films.

    2 years agoby @ejk1Flag

  25. Raoul Duke

    Much more interested in Sorkins script.

    2 years agoby @raoulduke33Flag

  26. Gandoff

    When you do a film about a real life person, especially about modern times, your going to get people who say this was wrong or that was wrong. Ever person who was involved directly with a real story, has a personal view of the facts. Some times the facts are skewed by the person point of view. Maybe the used direct information from Job's to tell the story when it was being written that he saw differently. Or maybe, as film industry does, they took liberties with the writing to not only sale a movie, but to make Jobs even more a symbol then he was.

    2 years agoby @gandoffFlag

From The Web