[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
THE BOOK cover
The Unwritten Book
is Finally Written!

Read Excerpts & Reviews
E-Book available
as Amazon Kindle or
at iTunes for $9.99.

Hardcopy available at Amazon
SABR101 required reading if you enter this site. Check out the Sabermetric Wiki. And interesting baseball books.
Shop Amazon & Support This Blog
RECENT FORUM TOPICS
Jul 12 15:22 Marcels
Apr 16 14:31 Pitch Count Estimators
Mar 12 16:30 Appendix to THE BOOK - THE GORY DETAILS
Jan 29 09:41 NFL Overtime Idea
Jan 22 14:48 Weighting Years for NFL Player Projections
Jan 21 09:18 positional runs in pythagenpat
Oct 20 15:57 DRS: FG vs. BB-Ref

Advanced

Tangotiger Blog

A blog about baseball, hockey, life, and whatever else there is.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

How true do movies need to be?

I saw 42.  I thought it was just an ok baseball movie, which makes it at even less-than-ok movie.  I'm not even sure which kind of moviegoer for whom I would recommend it.

Field of Dreams, a movie that is not based on the true story of baseball players, but uses familiar baseball names, wasn't true to every facet of Shoeless Joe (the handedness issue always comes up, which I think is silly).  Abraham Lincoln wasn't a vampire hunter either.  I like the idea that we take real people, and try to fit them into fictional accounts.

But what about movies that make a point that they are based on true events, like 42? 

The problem is very few people who have seen or will see the Robinson film know who Ostermueller was, and their lasting impression of him will be that he was a racist. That, however, is not who he was, and he deserves better, even in the make-believe land of Hollywood.

Do they have a duty to the truth because they proclaim their movie to be based on true events? 

If they would have made Moneyball more real, it would have been a worse movie.  I don't know if Billy Beane actually throws desks and bats around, or walks into the players' dressing room, or that DePodesta/Brand talks to players by showing them graphics, but all those things work, and they are memorable.  They enhance the movie.  Beane's first meeting with Brand required the prior scene of Beane flying to Cleveland to discuss a trade with the entire Indians braintrust in the room.  Naturally, that would never happen, but we needed that to get the payoff in the parking lot.

But, Chass' point goes deeper, as it besmirches a man's character.  Did it really need to go that far, by using a real player's name.  Why not just use a fake player?  It's not like the moviegoer would care in that case.  In that case, I think it was unnecessary, and so, painting a man as a racist crossed that line.?

(7) Comments • 2013/08/23 • History Media

Latest...

COMMENTS

Feb 07 15:38
Aging Curve - Swing Speed

Feb 06 11:55
Batting Average as a proxy for fun!  Batting Average as a proxy for fun?

Feb 03 20:21
Valuation implication of straying from the .300 win% replacement level

Jan 31 13:35
Breaking into the Sports Industry WITHOUT learning to code

Jan 26 16:27
Statcast: Update to Catcher Framing

Jan 19 15:02
Young players don’t like the MLB pay scale, while veteran stars love it

Jan 14 23:32
Statcast Lab: Distance/Time Model to Catcher Throwing Out Runners

Jan 07 13:54
How can you measure pitch speed by counting frames?

Jan 02 17:43
Run Value with runners on base v bases empty

Dec 28 13:56
Run Values of Pitches: Final v Intermediate

Dec 27 13:56
Hall of Fame voting structure problem

Dec 23 19:24
What does Andre Pallante know about the platoon disadvantage that everyone else does not?

Dec 21 14:02
Run Values by Movement and Arm Angles

Dec 18 20:45
Should a batter have a steeper or flatter swing (part 2)?

Dec 18 16:19
Art and Science of WAR: Deriving the zero-baseline, historically

THREADS

August 22, 2013
How true do movies need to be?