Michael Fassbender seems to be all over the news these days, and this time, it's because he might be replacing Christian Bale as Steve Jobs in the biopic based on the the life of the late businessman and Apple founder.
According to Variety, Bale dropped out as Jobs, saying that he felt that he wasn't right for the role. With that, Fassbender is in early talks for the role. The other half of the duo that formed the company, Steve Wozniack is to be played by Seth Rogen.
The film is based on the biography written by Walter Isaacson, the screenplay being done by Aaron Sorkin. Danny Boyle is set to helm the film, to be produced by Scott Rudin, Mark Gordon, and Guymon Casady.
Sorkin has already spoken out about the film's format, saying that the film is going to be divided into three long scenes, all taken from the backstage before one of the Apple launches that Jobs is known for. The stages, Sorkin noted, are as follows: "The first one being the Mac, the second one being NeXT, after he had left Apple. And the third one being the iPod."
But with Fassbender being more of a supervillain kind of guy (he was Magneto in "X-Men: Days of Future Past") what makes him qualified to get the role for Jobs?
According to Time Magazine, his franchise roles have proven that he's able to convey intellectual power as well as have disregard for mortal concerns for his role as Magneto, and as David the Android from Prometheus.
With Jobs being more concerned with technological advancement rather than human ties, Time notes that Fassbender's "ability to be supercilious onscreen without becoming loathsome would serve him well."
For Fassbender, who always seems to be playing the supporting role, this main cast as Steve Jobs in the biopic could mean that he could move forward and be a star in his own right.
Do you think Fassbender can pull off being the Apple founder better than Ashton Kutcher did in last year's failed Steve Jobs biopic attempt?