Having written about the realms of US politics (The American President, the frankly peerless West Wing) and then TV production (Studio 60), Aaron Sorkin, who for my money is as gifted and talented a writer as there is out there, now seems to be setting his sights on the various icons of the IT world. After his deserved Oscar® win for The Social Network and its formidable dissection of the somewhat enigmatic Mark Zuckerberg, Sorkin may now be setting his sights on Steve Jobs, the recently deceased head of Apple.

In an interview with E! Online, Sorkin was enthusiastic if a little non-committal:-

“Sony has asked me to write the movie and it’s something I’m strongly considering. Right now I’m just in the thinking-about-it stages, it’s a really big movie and it’s going to be a great movie no matter who writes it.”

Sony reportedly bought up the rights to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs for a cool $1m, amidst the general and seemingly globe-spanning swell of interest in Jobs following his tragic death earlier this year. That biography shifted close to 400,000 copies in its first week and Sorkin is said to be reading it at the moment while he considers Sony’s invitation to write the script for the film adaptation.

Apparently, The Hollywood Reporter asked veteran casting director Sharon Bialy who might be a good fit for Jobs in a film of his life. Her suggestions were Ashton Kutcher, Andrew Garfield or Shia LeBeouf for the younger years and Keanu Reeves, Ralph Fiennes or Noah Wyle for the older Job. Heaven help us. Ashton Kutcher and Keanu Reeves? Why not Seann William Scott and Jack Black? Garfield and Fiennes seem altogether more fitting, but what do I know? Let’s go with good actors rather than getting hung up on physical resemblance.

Once Sorkin has made his mind up, we’ll let you know.

Source: THR.

Steve Jobs, the co-founder and face of Apple, has died at the young age of just 56. Truly a visionary, this incredibly saddening news has been felt across the globe, with politicians and CEOs in Jobs’ rival technology companies sending out heartfelt statements lamenting the tragic loss of such a brilliant man at such a young age.

Decades ago, when he was just twenty years old, Jobs and two of his friends, Steve Wozniak and Ronald Wayne, started what would come to be one of the most profitable and market-leading companies in the world, Apple, Inc.

Starting something not just life-changing but world-changing too at the age of just twenty is truly a remarkable feat. His hard work over the thirty-six years since has led to the creation of the Macintosh, the iMac, the iPod, the iPad, the iPhone, and a company with an estimated market value of $351bn, the most valuable and visible technology company in the world.

But Apple was not the only thing that we have to thank him for. In 1986, having recently been removed from Apple after an internal power struggle that Jobs has since stated was the best thing to ever happen to him, Jobs went on to become one of the co-founders of another of the world’s most recognisable companies in the entertainment industry, Pixar. Less than a decade later, Pixar brought us the world’s first feature film entirely created by computer animation, Toy Story, a film that Jobs was producer on, and which went on to be nominated for three Academy Awards at a time when the Oscars didn’t even have a category for Best Animated Feature Film.

A year after Toy Story’s release saw Jobs’ return to Apple in 1996 that would see him take the leading role of Chief Executive Officer, making him top man of two major companies,  Pixar and Apple.

Sadly, in 2004 came the tragic news that Jobs had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Five years later, he had a successful liver transplant, but in January back at the start of this year, Jobs announced that he would be taking more medical leave, leaving Tim Cook, who had taken the role of CEO previously during Jobs’ earlier medical leave, in charge of the running of Apple. In August, we then got the news that Jobs was resigning from his role as Apple’s CEO, and it is with great sadness that news has now come today that Jobs has died.

Various statements have been released from prominent people across the globe, and they are all a testament to the impact that Jobs has had not just in America, but throughout the world. The Washington Post has reprinted US President Barack Obama’s statement in reaction to this saddening news,

“Steve was among the greatest of American innovators — brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world and talented enough to do it.

By building one of the planet’s most successful companies from his garage, he exemplified the spirit of American ingenuity. By making computers personal and putting the Internet in our pockets, he made the information revolution not only accessible, but intuitive and fun. And by turning his talents to storytelling, he has brought joy to millions of children and grown-ups alike. Steve was fond of saying that he lived every day like it was his last. Because he did, he transformed our lives, redefined entire industries and achieved one of the rarest feats in human history: He changed the way each of us sees the world.

The world has lost a visionary. And there may be no greater tribute to Steve’s success than the fact that much of the world learned of his passing on a device he invented.”

Wired have done a brilliant job dedicating their home page to Jobs today, printing more tributes to the great man from people as various as Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City, film critic Roger Ebert, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates John Lasseter, Chief Creative Officer, and Ed Catmull, President, Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios, too, have spoken out on the death of a good friend:

“Steve Jobs was an extraordinary visionary, our very dear friend and the guiding light of the Pixar family. He saw the potential of what Pixar could be before the rest of us, and beyond what anyone ever imagined. Steve took a chance on us and believed in our crazy dream of making computer animated films; the one thing he always said was to simply ‘make it great.’ He is why Pixar turned out the way we did and his strength, integrity and love of life has made us all better people. He will forever be a part of Pixar’s DNA. Our hearts go out to his wife Laurene and their children during this incredibly difficult time.”

At a graduation ceremony at Stanford University back in 2005, Jobs gave a speech that has since become well known, and though this extract from his speech from Stanford’s own website may well sound familiar to you, and may well surface many times in the coming days and weeks, there is a lot of truth and inspiration to be found in his words and it feels appropriate to reprint them now:

“Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

He will truly be missed.

Sounds like we might have a date for the announcement of the iPhone 5 people!

News reports have just bounced around the interwebs that Tim Cook (the new CEO of Apple who took over from Steve Jobs last month) will hold a media event on October 4th. What isn’t confirmed yet (and probably wont be until he’s on stage) is that the event is to announce the iPhone 5 although all signs point to that being the case.

The news comes from All Thing Digital (via Mashable) who also say that other key Apple execs will be present to make the announcement and they go on to say that source suggest that the phone will be rolled out a few weeks after the announcement is made.

While Apple could certainly change its plans anytime, sources said that the October 4 date has been selected by the company to showcase the iPhone 5. Sources added that the plan is now to make the new device available for purchase within a few weeks after the announcement.

More as we get it iPhone fans!

If you think Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo have the console war all wrapped up, there could be a massive shock on the horizon.

EA’s VP Patrick Soderlund said he believes Apple would have “a relatively good chance to succeed” should they decide to wade into the gaming mass-market.

There have long been whispered rumours of a major Apple console, and considering the success of the iPhone and iPad’s mobile gaming scene, you can see why the tittle tattle has escalated of late.

In a chat with CVG about the future of the games industry, Soderlund commented that Apple is the only other company that would stand a fighting chance of muscling in on the Big Three.

“If it was anyone but Apple, I’d say that’s going to be very hard,” he answered.

“I still think it’s going to be extremely hard for them but they’ve surprised many people before. Look at what they did with the iPhone, right? They are a truly brilliant company so I would give them a relatively good chance to succeed if they tried.”

Whether this means a major Apple release is on the cards is another thing, but with so many industry bigwigs throwing their weight behind the idea, surely it’s only a matter of time?

As massive fans of both cinema and video games, it’s not untrue to say we’re collectively geekgasming all over the place at the thought of how great Telltale Games’ Back to the Future games could be.

And now the first trailer has arrived, it’s only served to excite us even more. Great Scott!

The developer has broken the game up into five downloadable episodes set after the original movie trilogy, which will have players controlling Marty McFly and Doc Brown as they rocket through time.

Check out the video below and the images that were released earlier this week and let us know what you think.

Back to the Future will be released on PC, Mac, PS3 and iPad.

Our stateside readers are in for a treat.

The BBC’s iPlayer is set to be released internationally in the form of a subscription-only iPad app.

And while the demand for Doctors, Bargain Hunt and Young Plumber of the Year is probably rather low (or at least we’d hope so), for fans of shows such as Eastenders, Doctor Who and Top Gear, it’s great news. And of course the potential is now there for undiscovered classics to gain notoriety across the pond.

“I can announce here that we’re going to be adopting a pure paid subscription model for the global iPlayer for launch—in part to get audiences used to using the service, but more importantly so we can generate additional value from the service in terms of the user data that it gives us,” said BBC.com’s Managing Director Luke Bradley-Jones at the Digital TV Summit.

The iPlayer was originally launched in 2007 and has since evolved onto numerous platforms including the iPhone and Blackberry, albeit domestically due to licensing restrictions.

It’s a major breakthrough for online broadcasting, with the majority of the Beeb’s rivals (both domestically and internationally) some way behind the curve.

While the iPad’s success was far from a failure (3 million sold in its 80 days), there were numerous quibbling niggles that meant a lot of iPhone-rs would hold off until Apple released a second incarnation.

Well it appears the second generation iPad will be hitting shops pretty soon – and it could just be the upgrade users have been waiting for (and hopefully less of the monstrosity on the left).

Engadget picked up on a story from the Taiwan Stock Exchange, where manufacturing firm Largan Precision revealed they were the “sole lens module supplier” for the new iPad, and stated that shipments will commence in Q1 2011.

Considering the front-facing camera on the iPod Touch SKU and iPhone 4, it’s looking increasingly likely Apple will expand their camera-inclusion to the new iPad, and we’re guessing they’ll be both front back facing to enable Face-Time.

While the release date relates to the lens themselves as opposed to the actual device, we can’t help but feel Apple will be keen to keep on top of their now annual product update rollout, so expect the iPad Mark 2 come April.

Apple have exclusively premiered the first trailer and teaser poster for Summit Entertainment’s ace-looking science fiction film Source Code.

Directed by Duncan Jones, his follow-up to the BAFTA-award winning and critically lauded Moon, Source Code stars Jake Gyllenhaal, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright, Michelle Monaghan, Russell Peters and Michael Arden.

A soldier (Gyllenhaal) becomes part of an experimental government program that is investigating a train bombing. He is forced to relive the incident over and over again until he can find out who is responsible and how to prevent the next terrorist attack from occurring.

Source Code will be released in the UK on March 11, 2011.

Check out the embedded trailer and teaser poster below:

Although the ability to watch films on phones or pocket sized devices has been around for a while, the choice to watch a film on a phone again became a hot topic following the announcement of the new iPhone. Speaking to friends/film lovers I was pretty shocked at how many said that they were more than happy to watch films on devices such as the iPhone and already had in many cases.

Now the reason I was so shocked was because watching a film on a small device (for convenience I will define this as just a few inches in size, the iPhone is 3.5″) seems like such an unappetising and, to be honest, unthinkable proposition. Why would you watch a film in such an inferior way? Aside from the visual issues in watching a film designed to be projected on a large screen on a tiny screen there is also the importance in immersing yourself in a film. Immersion must be quite hard when you are holding a phone on a busy commuter train.

It is important though that any debate surrounding this issue is treated in an intelligent and mature way. Although I personally will never watch a film on a phone this subject is not a dichotomy, a simple argument about being right or wrong. I do not believe that anyone who disagrees and is willing to watch a film on their phone is wrong. Unfortunately the internet has the irritating effect of polarising any debate, “Avatar’s the greatest film ever made”, “Avatar’s the worst film ever made”. This is not what draws me to film criticism, intelligent debate draws me to film criticism.

On the day of the iPhone announcement, Roger Ebert tweeted the following:

This generated a mixture of positive and negative responses and unfortunately they were just that, positive or negative responses, not a debate. Although Ebert has not yet elaborated further, he was, I’m sure, quickly responding with his opinion on the subject. It was a statement regarding a personal attitude he holds, one I also hold, and not necessarily a judgement call, although it was treated by many as such.

So with this in mind I will briefly outline the reasoning behind my statement and hopefully this will encourage further debate on the subject and not just negative or positive confirmations.

I believe that watching a film on a small device is the far end of a sliding scale of compromises. Films are made for an intended viewing experience. I will concede that in some cases films are made with the understanding that they are going straight to Video/DVD or that they will be watched in 4:3 and in these cases the filmmaker may deliberately make the film in certain way to accommodate this. I will even concede that if at some point a filmmaker makes a film that he/she intends to be watched on a phone I would then watch it on a phone, although the prospect does not excite me. For the most part though films are intended for theatrical distribution and for a large number of years this was the only consideration. For these films the filmmakers made the films with a cinema in mind. The intended audience watched the film in a cinema with a large screen projected by a professional.

One such filmmaker is David Lynch who, in the clip below, makes his feelings very clear on the experience of watching films on your phone.

Even just watching a film in a screening room at a Post Production facility highlights the difference between how the filmmakers will watch a film and how films are generally seen in cinemas. From the post production screening I see it as a downward sliding scale that currently ends with watching a film on a phone. Barry (also from HeyUGuys) mentioned to me that he felt that watching a film on an iPod was preferable to watching it on VHS, thereby making the VHS the bottom of this scale. This is his choice and view but it is not one I share and I think it is worth briefly mentioning why. Watching a well kept widescreen VHS made from a well sourced print on a good television is preferable, in my opinion, to the same film viewed on an iPod.

I believe though that any way in which one watches a film is a compromise and this debate boils down to how much of a compromise are you willing to make. As I have said, even a cinema experience is a compromise. I came across a good example of that this year.

When I reviewed Kick-Ass in March it was after attending a large press screening. In my review I mentioned the “super-saturated colours” and the positive effect this had on my enjoyment of the film.

Upon rewatching the film again at the cinema, but this time not at a press screening and two weeks after its release, aside from the change in atmosphere (something I also consider important) the first thing I noticed was the big difference in how the film looked. The “super-saturated colours” were gone and the print had been poorly treated, with noticeable damage. The film was also probably projected as a single reel and the joins between reels had been poorly done and their were noticeable jumps and pops. Although I still enjoyed the film, it just wasn’t the same. This is, of course, anecdotal but it highlights where, even in viewing films at the cinema, there is a compromise. This is a compromise I try and eliminate where I can (attending trusted cinemas helps) but one that is still preferable to what I consider greater compromises represented by the experience outside of a cinema.

I also feel that the so-called ‘home cinema’ is a compromise but one that mostly due to the availability of films showing at cinemas and my own finances is a compromise I have to constantly make. In an ideal world I would only watch films in cinemas, expertly projected from director approved high quality prints. I except though that in order to see the number and variety of films that I want to, this is not a realistic prospect and I have to make compromises and watch films at home. I am still careful though to ensure my compromise is as slight as possible. Well sourced prints, good quality transfers, correct aspect ratios, good quality original audio tracks are all important when I rent or buy a DVD or Blu-Ray and I will import or wait if I know there is a better version that I could watch. Some may say this is going too far or that I care too much but this is the ‘price’ of loving films and wanting to experience them in the best way you can, with consideration given to your finances, time and location.

I love cinema and to me it is important. If its not that important to you I understand why you might not care but I find it so strange that so many people who appear to love cinema are so willing to compromise and watch films in a way that I believe is at the very bottom of a downward sliding scale of compromise. I feel that films deserve better than the experience of watching them on a phone; this is, for me, a compromise too far.

So in the interests of open debate I encourage you to respond to this piece with your own take on my thoughts regarding this scale of compromise and your own viewing habits. Please leave your comments below or head over to the forum to discuss the subject and I will be happy to respond to any questions or criticisms.

Photo Source: The Prince Charles Cinema as photographed by :: K a t e ::

Every week Apple offer a film for rental at a discounted price of 99p on iTunes. For several weeks, the selections were pretty poor. Then last week saw a quality jump, with Matthew Vaughn’s Layer Cake.

 Would this week continue the improvement? The answer would be a resounding yes, as to coincide with the DVD release of Terminator: Salvation, we’ve been treated to James Cameron’s 1984 classic, the original The Terminator.

 In the future, a post-apocalyptic war rages on, as small pockets of human resistance fighter struggle for survival. The predators intent on their destruction are man’s own creation, machines. Robotic soldiers pursue what remains of our race, the genocide of an entire species almost complete. One man (Arnold Schwarzenneger) is sent back, through time, to before the civil war began. He begins tracking down all the Sarah Connors in the phonebook eliminating them one by one. Someone else is also sent back.

 Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) is an ordinary woman, with a dead end job, and a life going nowhere. When the news reports a serial killer is hunting down people with her name, she tries to find a safe place. But there is no safe refuge from this killing machine, and he tracks her down. The second man sent back comes to her rescue. Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn) has to convince Connor that she holds the key to mankind’s survival, and together they must evade both the police and an unstoppable cyborg killing machine.

 You’ve all seen Terminator, you don’t need my opinion on the story. Does it still hold up today? Thematically, it’s still just as relevant. Our dependence on technology to live continues to increase unabated. Large corporations still hold far too much power and exert too much influence. Our paranoia towards the secret experiments conducted by the men and women in political power hasn’t decreased in the last twenty-five years. The action is as exciting as ever, the sub-par acting to be expected from an 80′s action movie.

 The effects, great at the time, obviously are incomparable to today’s standards. The stop-motion effects particularly have aged badly. Whereas in a horror film like The Thing the jerky look of this technique give the alien creatures a suitably creepy, otherworldly feel, in a movie based on a premise of then futuristic technology it does let the movie down a bit.

 Unfair criticism, as i said it was good for the time. After all, no amount of cutting edge technology and CGI could make Terminator: Salvation anything more than a big let down. Definitely worth a pound of anyone’s money, if you haven’t seen it for a while give The Terminator a watch, and remind yourself why we are all looking forward to Cameron’s Avatar next month.

 The Terminator is available on iTunes at the discounted price until Midnight Monday 30th November, and on DVD and Blu-Ray now.

 Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Last week, presumably due to a technical error, there was no 99p rental on iTunes. Now i’ll be honest, based on the suspect selections of recent weeks, it was nice to get a week off. I also considered the possibility that Apple had maybe decided to stop it altogether.

 I thought that would be a great shame. Then it came back this week, and i had to watch Carl Reiner’s Fatal Instinct…

 Ned (Armand Assante) is a police officer, and a lawyer. He believes greatly in the justice system, which is why he has no trouble defending the criminals that he arrests. His wife, Lana (Kate Nelligan), presumably feeling neglected due to her husbands time consuming dual role, is having an affair with her mechanic, Frank (Christopher McDonald). Upon discovering a clause in Ned’s life insurance that pays triple if a particular, highly unlikely accident occurs, enlists her lover to assist in a convoluted plan to bring about said unlikely scenario, in an attempt to become nine million dollars richer.

 Meanwhile, a mysterious woman, Lola (Sean Young), who Ned ran into at the fairground, begs his services. The presence of the attractive stranger immediately raises the ire of Ned’s assistant, Laura (Sherilyn Fenn) who is secretly in love with him. Regardless, Ned and his new client embark on a tumultuous affair, despite his love and devotion to his devious wife.

 Eventually, he spurns his lover, just before his wife’s dastardly plans are put into action. During an attempt to shoot her husband, Lana mistakenly shoots a recently released convict, who had murderous intentions of his own towards Ned, who had arrested said convict and then failed to win the defendant’s case. Ned, believing his wife had been trying to protect him, takes on Lana’s case as her lawyer.

 Ok, i’m gonna stop before it really gets silly. Fatal Instinct is a parody of Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, and all the other erotic thrillers that were once in vogue. It’s somewhere between Naked Gun and Scary Movie in it’s style of comedy, featuring the very worst elements of each. It’s just not funny.

 There’s no comedy here, just tired wordplay and poor sight gags, that on the whole don’t really make sense. I laughed once, when Frank attempted to creep out of Ned’s bedroom as he slept. Predictably, he made a huge racket in the process, but Ned didn’t stir. That’s it! And that was only funny because i’d had to sit through so much that wasn’t just to get there.

 It’d be unfair to make a judgement on the actors performances in this film, as they have been given so little to work with. Sherilyn Fenn does, however, appear to belong in another movie. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just that her character hasn’t been given much in the way of bad puns, and as a result she appears a lot more grounded than the silliness around her.

 In short (and i have kept it short for you), Fatal Instinct is easily one of the worst movies i have ever seen, and iTunes should be ashamed of themselves for subjecting me to it. Tut tut.

 Fatal Instinct is available on iTu… Oh what’s the point, no-one is still reading. Buy yourself a couple of Wispas instead. Yummy.

 Bazmann