Tech icons don't last long.

A

Aspiring Mogul

The Butler is a biopic of an unknown flunky who worked in the White House, but this movie is doing well while the biopic of Steve Jobs, one of the most influential persons in high-tech, is floundering.

Tech icons don't seem to last long - Jobs was inspired by the late Edwin Land, founder and CEO of Polaroid, and, in the 1960's and 1970's, Land was an icon because his company invented instant photography. But Land has been almost forgotten, and Jobs seems to be fading into history - when was the last time people spoke of the late Apple CEO?

Film icons, by contrast, can last longer - who doesn't know of Luke Skywalker? Even TV icons can last longer, like Marcia Brady or the Flintstones.
 
sfoster said:
pretty sure i hear about steve jobs more often than fred flintstone
jobs is also very popular overseas
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but everyone knows of Fred Flintstone, which has been shown worldwide for decades. But I haven't seen any news stories lately about Steve Jobs, except how he was the late CEO of Apple, and then only in passing.

A good cult icon would be Einstein or, in a different way, Che Guevara.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
I could be wrong, but everyone knows of Fred Flintstone, which has been shown worldwide for decades. But I haven't seen any news stories lately about Steve Jobs, except how he was the late CEO of Apple, and then only in passing.

A good cult icon would be Einstein or, in a different way, Che Guevara.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your comparison at all.
I haven't seen any news stories lately about Fred flintstone. And everyone knows steve jobs world wide..
 
I don't think you can judge the status of an icon by the performance of the films though. The Butler is getting great reviews (76% on RT), while Jobs is getting generally poor ones (26%). If they both were getting rave reviews it might be a better comparison, but even then there's a lot more at play including the marketing and promotion.

Aspiring Mogul said:
Film icons, by contrast, can last longer - who doesn't know of Luke Skywalker? Even TV icons can last longer, like Marcia Brady or the Flintstones.
Click to expand...

But this is a different comparison than the two biopics you started with. Pop-culture icons are by definition widely known and recognized. They are marketed with the express intention of getting as many people as possible to know who they are and like them. Real-world historical figures aren't generally the same except in a few exceptional cases.

So to get back to the original comparison - go take a quick survey of 100 people on the street right now, ask people if they can tell you who Steve Jobs and Eugene Allan are. I'm pretty sure most will know who Jobs was, and very few will know anything about Allan - even if they've seen The Butler, since it's not really a biopic even though it's based on his experiences.
 
Uncle Bobs Mantra #3 - K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid!!!


When it comes to the general public paying money to see a film, which film do you think they want to see.

- A white geek builds a computer, starts a company and gets rich.

- A poor black man gets a job at the White House in the early '50's and serves eight presidents during some of the most socially tumultuous eras in US history.


I mean, really, c'mon! The first is a boring biography. The second is potentially Oscar-worthy social commentary with an all-star cast. (I'm not making a personal judgement, I'm talking about public perceptions.) Which one do you think cash-strapped movie-goers would choose to spend their hard-earned money on?



This completely ignores the actual quality of the movies themselves and the reviews that they have received.
 
Alcove Audio said:
Uncle Bobs Mantra #3 - K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple, Stupid!!!
Click to expand...

:)

OK, everyone, let me get my thoughts together.

First of all, it's Monday morning, so I was thinking that the Butler was a movie about nobody and is doing well, while a movie about a tech icon isn't doing well. This goes to show, as Goldman has said, that people are surprised time and time again.

Anyway, my OP was really about a second point, namely, that tech icons don't remain iconic for very long. My example is one of Edwin Land, founder of Polaroid and inspiration to Jobs, who was a tech icon in the 1960's and 1970's, but is almost forgotten today.

By contrast, cultural icons like the Flintstones or even Luke Skywalker last longer. So, leaving aside my ramblings about the two movies, I'm wondering what everyone has to say about tech icons vs cultural icons.
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
I'm wondering what everyone has to say about tech icons vs cultural icons.
Click to expand...

Okay.

Technology is lumped together with natural phenomenon, it's part of the changing landscape of our lives. How many people avidly followed every twist and turn of Job's career while it was happening? How many people avidly followed every twist and turn of Michael Jackson's career while he was alive? An improvement in technology is difficult to understand, especially as our society dumbs down. You don't need to understand binary language or physics to be "entertained" by the news of which celebrity is sleeping with whom, or who went on a drug & drink fueled rampage, or a wardrobe malfunction at a major sporting event.

Celebrities are human beings who do human things; it is much easier to identify with human occurrences than it is to identify with technological events. We identify with the human emotions and needs and events found in books and plays and films and music because, as human beings, we all (to some degree) experience those emotions, have those needs and are affected by all sorts of events. Most human beings can't identify with electrons, tensile strengths, chemical emulsions, etc. (even though we use the results of those technologies every day), and most find it very difficult to identify with those few ultra-smart people who do understand the complexities of advanced technology. We like to feel superior, that's one reason why reality TV is so popular; "Hell, even I'm smarter than that moron!" Those uber-smart folks make us feel inferior, and who wants to feel inferior?
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
Anyway, my OP was really about a second point, namely, that tech icons don't remain iconic for very long. My example is one of Edwin Land, founder of Polaroid and inspiration to Jobs, who was a tech icon in the 1960's and 1970's, but is almost forgotten today.

By contrast, cultural icons like the Flintstones or even Luke Skywalker last longer. So, leaving aside my ramblings about the two movies, I'm wondering what everyone has to say about tech icons vs cultural icons.
Click to expand...

"Tech icons" and "Cultural icons" aren't really what you're talking about. Steve Jobs was a tech icon, but he only has a movie (well, several movies actually, and a bunch of books, and magazine articles, etc) about him because he has become a cultural icon. Most tech icons don't become cultural icons like that - you'll probably never see a movie about Linus Torvald, Tim Berners-Lee, Douglas Engelbert, etc because as big as they are as tech icons they never made that transition to mainstream cultural icons. They're still very well-known and highly regarded in tech circles though. Likewise Edwin Land - he was never as well known as Jobs during his lifetime, and he's not almost forgotten today, he's just not well known outside of the world of people who are interested in photography beyond the confines of instagram.

The Flinstones and Luke Skywalker are products. They were designed to be marketed and sold to the largest audience possible. Everything behind them has been pushing for them to be remembered. That's what they exist for. They have become cultural icons because they were designed to be popular and succeeded, and then they've been milked for profit as long as possible.

Even then, most don't. And those that do don't last indefinitely. Lots of people still remember Luke Skywalker, but when was the last time you heard anything about Buck Rogers? You know Indiana Jones, but what about Allan Quatermain? Or, perhaps more relevant - what about the Lone Ranger? Big pop/cultural icon, should have been a slam dunk, wasn't. And Soderbergh had to make his Liberace movie for HBO because no one was going to fund it as a theatrical release - because they knew few people were going to go buy a ticket to it despite the fact that Liberace was the highest paid entertainer in the world for over a decade.

So I don't really understand the argument you're making. If you're saying that things that are designed and pushed to be famous tend to remain so longer than those that aren't, that seems to be somewhat obvious. Or that people who essentially become famous by accident, and have little or no interest in pursuing fame, don't remain as well-known as celebrities who pursue fame, again it's somewhat obvious. It's nothing to do with tech vs. cultural icons, it's about pop products vs. historical figures.

As for the specific example of Jobs I have a feeling part of it is oversaturation. People have been hearing about Jobs a lot for the past few years. His latest biography was amazon's top seller of 2011. There were a ton of news stories and shows and articles and so on when he died - everyone who's really interested in the details of his life have had ample opportunity to find them out.

Then you add in Ashton Kutcher, who's largest demographic right now seems to be pre-teen, who isn't really a big box-office draw in general, and who's known primarily for goofy comedy. Even the people who like Steve Jobs don't trust him to pull it off. And you put him up against Oprah Winfrey, who for years has been able to make or break best-selling books, movies and products just by telling everyone they're one of her favorite things. Top it off with their comparative reviews and Jobs didn't stand a chance - and it has nothing to do with the status of Steve Jobs as a cultural icon.
 
ChimpPhobiaFilms said:
What's the last news/story/mentioning you've heard relating to the Flintstones? Now what's the last news/story/mentioning you heard about Jobs?
Click to expand...

Uh oh, you're forcing me to structure my thoughts, but that's good for me, I guess. Thanks. :)


Alcove Audio and IDOM, you've also made me focus on the difference between tech icons and cultural icons, so I'll try to answer all of you.

First of all, as I understand it, Edwin Land was a tech icon in those days, being on the cover of Life magazine.

As for the cultural icons that have died, yes, Buck Rogers et al haven't been revived and may never be, but the point is that the longest-lasting cultural icons like the Flinstones and, yes, Mickey Mouse will outlast the iconic status of Edwin Land, Nikola Tesla, and, yes, Steve Jobs. Flintstones has been shown all over the world, and Mickey was just the hero of an online video game called Epic Mickey, if I remember correctly. But how long do you think people will be wearing t-shirts of Jobs? They probably aren't even doing that now.


There is a further type of cultural icon, referring to individuals - Che Guevara was an icon and may still be; James Dean was also an icon; same with Lucille Ball. In terms of fame, they've lasted longer than tech icons, but that may be because tech is moving so fast.

All I'm saying is that tech icons don't remain as iconic as cultural icons. I hope I've focused my thoughts, but, hey, you guys are keeping me on my toes and forcing me to focus, which is good. Thanks once again, everyone. :)
 
So you'd line up to see a movie called "Yoshiro Nakamatsu" or "Amir Ban, Dov Moran and Oron Ogdan" or "Philo Farnsworth" or even "Karl Benz" ?

All those people made things that had a greater impact than someone who built another computer clone and updated the walkman.

It's the stories about people that the audience care about. Interesting things we can relate to. That's why stories about the aforementioned people probably won't attract large audiences.
 
I thought this thread was about Jim Jannard stepping down as the face/voice of RED.

Turns out it was a much more interesting conversation :)
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
Uh oh, you're forcing me to structure my thoughts, but that's good for me, I guess. Thanks. :)


Alcove Audio and IDOM, you've also made me focus on the difference between tech icons and cultural icons, so I'll try to answer all of you.

First of all, as I understand it, Edwin Land was a tech icon in those days, being on the cover of Life magazine.

As for the cultural icons that have died, yes, Buck Rogers et al haven't been revived and may never be, but the point is that the longest-lasting cultural icons like the Flinstones and, yes, Mickey Mouse will outlast the iconic status of Edwin Land, Nikola Tesla, and, yes, Steve Jobs. Flintstones has been shown all over the world, and Mickey was just the hero of an online video game called Epic Mickey, if I remember correctly. But how long do you think people will be wearing t-shirts of Jobs? They probably aren't even doing that now.


There is a further type of cultural icon, referring to individuals - Che Guevara was an icon and may still be; James Dean was also an icon; same with Lucille Ball. In terms of fame, they've lasted longer than tech icons, but that may be because tech is moving so fast.

All I'm saying is that tech icons don't remain as iconic as cultural icons. I hope I've focused my thoughts, but, hey, you guys are keeping me on my toes and forcing me to focus, which is good. Thanks once again, everyone. :)
Click to expand...

Think about why a character, say... Mickey Mouse will be a more recognizable character than Jobs as time goes by. Walt Disney was an innovative businessman, animator, film producer, director, theme park designer screenwriter, and actor. He received four honorable Academy Awards, 22 Academy Awards, and 59 Nominations. Many people grew up with Mickey Mouse as a kid. He made people laugh and cry. He entertained children and adults. His image is known by pretty much every adult and child in the US.

Steve Jobs was a businessman.

But did he contribute as much to our world, as say, Disney did? He knew how to sell products and make money. He asked people to create "better, smaller, and thinner products". I'm not denying that he made an impact on our world, but the questions is how much of an impact on our world, and if his story should live on.
 
It also doesn't help that the Apple fanboys know Aaron Sorkin is writing a biopic about Jobs that will have a more realistic Woz and it doesn't help that most people who saw the film early who know Jobs have panned it. Woz included along with Leo Laporte. A better movie about Jobs is coming with a much better writer attached to the project.
 
I've been thinking about cultural icons.

Why is Che Guevara an icon but not Trotsky? Trotsky died a martyr's death, with a pickaxe in the brain, and he was far more important to the communist movement than Che, who never had a single success. And why is Elvis being impersonated but not Michael Jackson or Liberace? I don't know.

As for tech icons, Edwin Land was an icon in the 1960's and 1970's but is forgotten, and no one seems to be making t-shirts with Jobs' face on it.

And no one, as far as I know, have done a movie about John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century who led an incredible life.

So, to continue my line of thought, I'm drawing the tentative conclusion that "tech icons" don't remain iconic for long, because tech is evolving so quickly, while cultural icons, for whatever reason, can remain iconic for far longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top