[KalMann]

I really don't think your argument is very convincing. Some of your examples are downright ridiculous? "Jobs" Making a movie about one of the creation of some of one of the most famous companies on Earth is obviously interesting. That's not comparable at all.

[chmod775]

> Making a movie about one of the creation of some of one of the most famous companies on Earth is obviously interesting.

That's not what "Jobs" is about. It's the setting of a character-driven dramatization of Steve Job's life and his personality. You do not grow a company like Apple merely by dominating rooms with your personality, dropping oneliners and speaking in absolutes. There's a lot of actual work involved, the details of which would make for a movie rather boring to most audiences.

"Jobs" is a movie about Apple as much as "Inglourious Basterds" is a movie about the US military in WW2.

[raincole]

If you actually watched Jobs you would know it has very little to do with how Apple was actually created in real life.

Of course a movie about Steve Jobs is inherently more marketable than one about Qian Xuesen. But one isn't inherently more boring than the other.