Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Ashton Bombs Again!

"Jobs" is a box office FAIL.

From Nikki Finke:

"Starting #6 today in wide release (2,381 theaters) is Open Road’s Jobs – the Apple co-founder Steve Jobs biopic starring Ashton Kutcher – which is looking like a disappointing $2.4M today and $6.7M this weekend despite a plethora of TV ad buys. Ashton just isn’t a movie star, period, and the ‘B-’ CinemaScore won’t generate any helpful word of mouth."

by Anonymousreply 6008/18/2013

He is not a movie star. Go back to TV....AND STAY THERE!!!!!

by Anonymousreply 108/17/2013

How could anyone imagine that he could carry a film?

by Anonymousreply 208/17/2013

I don't think it's necessarily Ashton's fault. I think they overestimated how many people would be interested in a movie about Steve Jobs.

by Anonymousreply 308/17/2013

Ashton is not a movie star no matter what the topic.

by Anonymousreply 408/17/2013

Agree with R3.

by Anonymousreply 508/17/2013

I like Ashton -- good guy. Better than that Mellencamp butthole.

by Anonymousreply 608/17/2013

He's just a celebrity. He's not a performer.

by Anonymousreply 708/17/2013

Does he at least show his peen in the film? If not, forget it, he's not getting my eight bucks.

by Anonymousreply 808/17/2013

He doesn't have good enough pecs to be a leading man. He may have a future as a character actor.

by Anonymousreply 908/17/2013

They shouldn't have opened "Jobs" on the same weekend as Oprah and "The Butler."

by Anonymousreply 1008/17/2013

The only Jobs I want from Ashton don't involve a movie.

by Anonymousreply 1108/17/2013

"What is box office poison?"

Let me look that up for you.

by Anonymousreply 1208/17/2013

[quote]I don't think it's necessarily Ashton's fault. I think they overestimated how many people would be interested in a movie about Steve Jobs.

But people went to see a movie about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. But that was a good movie and and this one, by most accounts, is not.

Which is why they dumped it in August.

by Anonymousreply 1308/17/2013

R13. "The Social Network" was really about the worldwide phenomenon of Facebook. It was about the drama and intrigue of how it all began.

"Jobs" doesn't have that same story drama/conflict. The 'less than' box office return of "Jobs" is really not Kutcher's fault. Whether or not it's a biopic is beside the point because that's what it sounds like...and August isn't the right time for a movie about a guy not many people truly knew.

They know Jobs' products, but not him. I don't need to see a movie about the making of my phone.

by Anonymousreply 1408/17/2013

It's still not a good movie, R14. It has a 25% on RT. People saw how shitty Ashton was in the trailer/commercials and how the reviews are terrible and stayed away.

I'm sure there could have been a good Steve Jobs biopic and if it were well made, people would have seen it.

I bet a lot of people aren't seeing this *because* of Ashton.

by Anonymousreply 1508/17/2013

The biopic genre is overdone. Enough already.

by Anonymousreply 1608/17/2013

Maybe Kutcher is bad; I don't know. But usually when a movie is bad, it can also be attributed to the subject matter, the director, writing, etc. It's usually not only one actor's fault.

by Anonymousreply 1708/17/2013

There was some entertainment show on today showing how "successful" Ashton Kutcher has been in life, with all his interests, investments, projects, $$$, etc. I thought "Really? Why THIS guy and not a bazillion other guys with equally good looks, talent and ambition?" How does life work out this way for some people? He was amusing on That 70's Show and in "Dude, Where's My Car" but, after that, why the continued success? He is not that special. At all.

by Anonymousreply 1808/17/2013

r18, some people are just born lucky, I think. They're in the right place at the right time, and they know the right people at the right time etc etc etc etc.

Look at some A-listers for instance. How many times have you thought, "How did so-and-so become an A-lister, he sucks" (or whatever.)

There are some truly talented actors who never get a chance.

But it's not only showbiz - life is unfair and it sucks for most people. Some people get all the luck, while others have shit happen to them time and again through no fault of their own.

Always been like that and always will.

by Anonymousreply 1908/17/2013

I'm sure the film wasn't expensive. At first I thought it was a TV film. HBO should have made it.

by Anonymousreply 2008/17/2013

He's a novelty act. As an "actor," he's viewed as a sitcom joke and a tabloid fixture, notorious for a May-December celebrity marriage and little else.

He has no discernible talent. He looks dirty, vapid and witless. He's a joke. A rich joke, yes, but a joke nonetheless.

He's essentially a sober and less sleazy Charlie Sheen.

by Anonymousreply 2108/17/2013

It's the kind of movie where bad reviews hurt. If it'd been good they might have been able to roll it out in limited release like a lot of indie films and let good worth of mouth build.

by Anonymousreply 2208/17/2013

No he's not r21. Charlie Sheen has charisma. It's fucked up and sad charisma, but he has it.

Kutcher is wooden.

by Anonymousreply 2308/17/2013

Ashton portraying one of the world's most successful geniuses was a fucked up idea. i can't think of him without the phrase 'grandmafucker' flashing in my head.

by Anonymousreply 2408/17/2013

[quote]notorious for a May-December celebrity marriage and little else.

Apparently, less of a May - December relationship than we thought.

by Anonymousreply 2508/17/2013

Who the fuck thought it was genius casting to put Ashton Kutcher in a biopic about Steve Jobs and have it open in theatres like a feature length film. Ashton is synonymous with "dumb blonde."

Did they really expect this to make money? Did Noah Wylie do a Steve Jobs movie a long time ago? Made for TV? I mean I think Steve Jobs was a genius and a not very nice guy. But that being said, he doesn't deserve anything more than a made for TV movie. A really good one, though.

by Anonymousreply 2608/17/2013

Claude Shannon was a genius. Dennis Ritchie was a genius.

Steve Jobs was a psychopathic asshole who used others to create a techno-cult that prints money.

by Anonymousreply 2708/17/2013

There was a movie about the rise of Apple and Microsoft called "Pirates of Silicon Valley" that was TNT, with Wyle as Jobs and Anthony Michael Hall as Bill Gates.

This movie seems to qualify for camp based on the TV commercials alone.

by Anonymousreply 2808/17/2013

The story of Steve Jobs could be a very interesting movie with a good script and cast. There's a version for which Aaron Sorkin is writing the screenplay. I'd keep my eye out for that one.

by Anonymousreply 2908/17/2013

r29, umm no.

I'll pass on the sanctimonious orange blowhard's version.

by Anonymousreply 3008/17/2013

The commercials did the movie no favors. Lots of speechifying and portentous comments about how they were building the future or words to that effect. Who wants to see that crap? It's like a bad film strip shown to school children.

Meanwhile, he may be doing Jobs but it's indistinguishable from Kelso.

by Anonymousreply 3108/17/2013

Ashton really screwed himself with the Demi Moore relationship. That's all anybody can think of when they look at him. And he does come across as an arrogant, dumb douche.

Steve Jobs' life story isn't exactly theatrical release material, I don't know what they were thinking. It would have worked much better as a tv movie on cable. With a different actor, of course.

I really should be in charge of running a studio because I couldn't be any worse than the idiots who are currently in charge.

by Anonymousreply 3208/17/2013

[quote]Ashton just isn’t a movie star, period, and the ‘B-’ CinemaScore won’t generate any helpful word of mouth."

Nevermind that it's a shitty movie, let's blame the star!

by Anonymousreply 3308/17/2013

r33, The star could have partially saved it with a good, charismatic performance.

Actors are also known to demand script changes that could help the movie.

Everyone likes to bitch about actors ruining movies that way, but I'm sure some have benefited from it, too.

by Anonymousreply 3408/17/2013

TEXT FROM STEVE JOBS: WTF! With my legacy you pick Kutcher? You must have me mistaken with the CEO of Firefly.

by Anonymousreply 3508/18/2013

Whoever green lit this for a wide release is probably clearing out their office. This was never going to be a box office smash, anyone could have seen that.

Also, Ashton will never show his peen in a movie. Supposedly it's tiny.

by Anonymousreply 3608/18/2013

R30 You didn't like The Social Network? I thought the movie was pretty good, in no small part because of Sorkin's screenplay.

by Anonymousreply 3708/18/2013

How has Ashton escaped the gay rumors that surround so many other actors of his age group?

I mean he married a much older woman, he doesn't have any kids. He used to hang around with P Diddy.

Leo and George can't get away with this stuff.

by Anonymousreply 3808/18/2013

I've liked him since That 70's Show; I think he has great chops for comedy. He's not bad in Two and a Half Men. But he's not suited for drama, I would say. I also admire his (or his business manager's?) financial acumen. I think he's probably very smart.

But often "smarts" don't translate into being a good actor - not vulnerable enough, etc. I know I'm generalizing - can't quite put my finger on it, but yes, him as Jobs was a ridiculous idea.

He should perhaps have produced such a movie and, as people have pointed upthread - on cable. I actually think a complete unknown would have been better; of course people are going to see "Kelso" and the Demi Moore horseshit when when watch this film. All baggage this film didn't need.

As another poster said, I, too, await the Aaron Sorkin. Does anyone know who's playing Jobs in it? TIA.

by Anonymousreply 3908/18/2013

[quote]How has Ashton escaped the gay rumors that surround so many other actors of his age group?

No real pinging, though there are definitely bi rumors.

by Anonymousreply 4008/18/2013

Most gay actors don't give off a dull, boring, bland vibe. Since Kutcher seems dull, boring, and bland, he just doesn't ping.

by Anonymousreply 4108/18/2013

I can't believe he's almost 40, he seems so boyish. His fans aren't interested in movies like this, he's a male version of the blonde bimbo- starlet archetype.

by Anonymousreply 4208/18/2013

He just turned 34.

by Anonymousreply 4308/18/2013


by Anonymousreply 4408/18/2013

[quote] Most gay actors don't give off a dull, boring, bland vibe.

That's a stereotype.

by Anonymousreply 4508/18/2013

I hope this once and for all keeps Kutcher from trying to "broaden" his acting range. He's got got one speed: lovable goofball. Stick to what you're good at, Ashton.

by Anonymousreply 4608/18/2013

It should have been an HBO film.

With a different star. Mabye Peter Sarsgaard.

by Anonymousreply 4708/18/2013

OP of the "born in 1974 thread" here.

I have friends in advertising who've met Ashton and he is supposedly very intelligent. He created Punk'd, was an early investor of Twitter. These aren't lucky flukes. He's actively seeking out new opportunities and will be a mogul.

That's why I am not surprised he's shaved 4 years off his birthyear. At 35 he can still be the boy wonder, but Hollywood views 40 as something altogether different and at 39 you start to get re-evaluated.

by Anonymousreply 4808/18/2013

[quote] he is supposedly very intelligent.

Oh, it feels good to laugh again!!

by Anonymousreply 4908/18/2013

He's pretty - or at least, he used to be.

The End.

by Anonymousreply 5008/18/2013

Ashton is 31 is he is a day! He used to babysit me when I had the day off during my debut as "Annie" in the West End in 1993. As my mother used to say "The best person to watch at 5 year old girls is a 6 year old boy"...

by Anonymousreply 5108/18/2013

According to IMDB it cost 8.5 million to make. If this is anywhere close to true it is a HUGE success if it made 6.7 million in one weekend only in the US. No way it won't make 2.5 times it's cost(as some on DL claim is required for a success), if those numbers are close to correct.

This is not a production like "The Social Network", apart from there being no way that it's as good. This is an indie with a completely unknown director and screenwriter.

It might be a critical flop an not give Ashton the career push as a serious actor he hoped for, but it's far from a bomb.

by Anonymousreply 5208/18/2013

It's not Ashton the actor who bombs out but it can be the film choice or director that causes it. You can have the best actor on earth but a bad director or editing or bad plot and it comes out bad and the actor gets the blame. Sort of like a President over taxes and other things since he can't raise or lower taxes or do much of anything while the Congress can but the President will get credit or blame.

Ashton is a good actor and will make a great film in the future but he needs to be more careful with choices in a role yet he might be under contract and have to take what they demand at this time.

I know this from modeling and acting school but I did not act in film, just modeling and you have to act doing that too as well as be directed and follow certain things to get the best pic out of 100 or more going on in a mater of minutes. I try to be in the mood from before the flash starts and stay with it until cut time to get better pics instead of ending up with some real bad ones.

by Anonymousreply 5308/18/2013

Has Ashton ever defended his acting skills? I've only seen him be self-deprecating and say he's just a pretty face. Maybe he's taking himself more seriously these days, which would be hilarious.

by Anonymousreply 5408/18/2013

Boy, Ashton's p.r. Is certainly out in force.

by Anonymousreply 5508/18/2013

The general consensus is that Kutcher tends to use his trademark smirk too much, but the real issue is that the script and direction are abysmal.

Kutcher is OK in comic roles, but there's no way he's equipped to do justice to a dramatic biopic about Jobs, or anyone else.

by Anonymousreply 5608/18/2013


by Anonymousreply 5708/18/2013

[quote]According to IMDB it cost 8.5 million to make.

And probably $35 million to market.

by Anonymousreply 5808/18/2013

Lisa, hand me the axe!

by Anonymousreply 5908/18/2013

Ashton was fired from a film a few years ago for giving an abominable performance. I forget the title, but this was in the news. I wouldn't blame this one on the director or the editor. Ashton is simply a shit actor.

by Anonymousreply 6008/18/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!