tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post2186451377379790287..comments2024-01-06T02:22:33.000-05:00Comments on Camden Depot: The Greatest Baseball Movies...Jon Shepherdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-89384161945018470032018-04-05T11:04:55.511-04:002018-04-05T11:04:55.511-04:00PT - I do not really watch many movies these days ...PT - I do not really watch many movies these days and Million Dollar Arm slipped by me. I am well aware of the story and know people involved, so I kind of have less inclination to watch it.<br /><br />I would love to see someone do a mashup of Sandlot and IT. That sounds like a good movie. Like we all know the monster dog is not really a monster, but what if there is one?Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-75452827962284799822018-04-05T10:32:49.821-04:002018-04-05T10:32:49.821-04:00I thought the rookie was charming, but I don't... I thought the rookie was charming, but I don't have the knowledge that you have about the intricacies of the sport, so something that was blatantly in accurate would not bother me as much as it probably does you. <br /> Mark twain made a very perceptive comment in his book "life on the Mississippi" where he talks about being on deck of the steamship with a young woman who is commenting about how beautiful the water looks, and to Twain is pointing out that everything that she sees as beautiful and charming and picturesque, He sees as potentially deadly.<br /> The skill that he has developed in the subject made it difficult for him to appreciate the surface aspects. <br />As a musician, I have experienced that myself multiple times. I hate nothing more than watching movie musicians blatantly faking their instruments.<br />By the way, what did you think of " million dollar arm"? Probably not much, but my wife and I enjoyed it quite a bit.Piphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02853470978165087046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-13647520707148863042018-04-04T16:46:00.334-04:002018-04-04T16:46:00.334-04:00Jon, re Field of Dreams, man, I think you have tha...Jon, re Field of Dreams, man, I think you have that thing totally twisted. You are definitely "half-empty" while I'm "half-full" on that movie. I'd love to discuss it more but too much for a comment section. Bottom line is that when tradition (or regret) has become so burdensome that it keeps you from knowing your true self and finding peace with your path that a little magic on the diamond (the ultimate representation of Americana - baseball on a field in Iowa with a hot dog) is nice to have to help lead you there. It is a little overwrought and maudlin but there's a lot of "there" there. And Field of Dreams brings out some of the worst in Kevin Costner whereas Bull Durham brings out some of his best.<br /><br />WRT Moneyball, I didn't mean to imply that Hatteburg et al were not significant contributors and that Hatteburg embodied the essence of the Moneyball concept, but replacing Votto with Hatteburg would not make the Reds a winner. Without the returning core (and the starting pitching staff!!), they just would not have been a winning team. That "rebuild" does not compare to what the Astros/Cubs/etc.. have done. This was not a Marlins teardown from World Series winner to basement dweller. It is extraordinarily difficult to profoundly change a profession (the baseball GM and scouting professions) that has been mired in a staid process for so long. I think what Beane (and Bill James, of course) started was almost equivalent to going from the dead ball era to the live ball era. It is worthy of a story/movie and was played well. The scenes of Beane taking on the manager and the scouting staff were fantastic and embodied just how difficult that change is. There is no way the existing core of the A's was appreciated well enough in that movie. Wasn't Chavez or Tejada or Zito worth a banner on the side of the stadium or only Justice? If I recall, Tejada is the one that won the MVP not Giambi. Not much was made of the Moneyball failure of Jeremy Giambi. He was part of the "Moneyball Three" (Hatteburg, Justice, and Giambi). One other thing that was not treated well enough is the importance that statistics and Moneyball analysis treats fielding. That turned me off a little. The scene in Hatteburg's living room is truly classic with Beane and Wash but it flies in the face of how we treat the WAR value of defense. In the movie, "runs scored" is the only valued statistic as opposed to "runs prevented". I also don't think the difference between playing Pena and Hatteburg was all that close a decision as they implied - Hatteburg was the clear winner there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-48349562953671656352018-04-04T13:24:47.024-04:002018-04-04T13:24:47.024-04:00Pat - I have always intended to watch the Perfect ...Pat - I have always intended to watch the Perfect Game, but have not had the time. Final Season has passed by my radar.<br /><br />PTCello - I considered watching the Rookie and paid attention to the trailers, but the scene where he threw the ball with a side of the road radar gun made me pass. I do remember following Jim Morris when it was actually happening. I think the whole Disney approach made me worry enough.<br /><br />Yeah, Naked Gun, but if I am going down that road I think I have to put Brewsters Million in front.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-57874499191890854182018-04-04T12:33:29.771-04:002018-04-04T12:33:29.771-04:00And although it's not specifically about Baseb...And although it's not specifically about Baseball, how can you omit "the Naked Gun"?Piphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02853470978165087046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-5792785258552331472018-04-04T12:28:59.646-04:002018-04-04T12:28:59.646-04:00Did you watch "The Rookie"?
I do not re...Did you watch "The Rookie"?<br /> I do not remember the name of the character, but I remember listening to a Rangers game when he made his debut. Oh it was a wonderful scene. I actually can't remember whether he was successful or not, but it is a great story, and the movie kind of tells it truthfully Piphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02853470978165087046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-53160712301436459072018-04-04T12:17:20.766-04:002018-04-04T12:17:20.766-04:00You are missing one of the best movies. The Perfe...You are missing one of the best movies. The Perfect Game. Final Season worth watching, though not as good.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04352779549663115444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-32764122603632712852018-04-04T09:48:33.069-04:002018-04-04T09:48:33.069-04:00Re: Scripts and fiction. Yes, many years ago, I wo...Re: Scripts and fiction. Yes, many years ago, I worked on treatments for films. There is always a pull between what happened and what would improve the story (e.g., theme, pacing). Technical accuracy was something a little different that impacted neither, but helped with feel.<br /><br />Re: Field of Dreams. I do not really want to tell anyone that their opinion on the film and how it imparts meaning on them is wrong. What I mean to say, and you note, that it does not impart on me the same things it does for you. What I take from the movie is that idealism and progression of thought is morally empty. It does not lead to fulfillment. What leads you to fulfillment is casting away those dreams and toeing the shadow of tradition. And, somehow, that can be bought. It strikes me as weird. Just how quickly and without reason people give up core ideals to find their childhood where burdens are less realized, more accepted, or just forgotten.<br /><br />Re: Moneyball. I am still surprised they figured a way to film it. Scott Hatteburg was HUGE. To lose Giambi and to pick up a 3.4 bWAR player off the scrapheap at 900k was indeed a major plot point. Chad Bradford was a major contributor at 1.6 bWAR. I think what was hard to articulate, so they didn't, was how important these players were to maintain that level of performance. Yes, the team was the big three, Koch, Tejada, and Chavez, but what they were able to do with those other acquisitions was impressive. So, yeah, they got a movie out of it, but I still think they have not been able to communicate what happened.Jon Shepherdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03521809778977098687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2893512317902577458.post-85812279543188955192018-04-04T08:04:45.234-04:002018-04-04T08:04:45.234-04:00Jon, I don't disagree too much with your asses...Jon, I don't disagree too much with your assessments of the movies. Not having seen the documentaries, I had already come to the conclusion that Bull Durham was the best of the lot. No sports story could be told well without some "fantastical" elements (see how Michael Oher feels about The Blind Side) because sports, while exciting and dramatic to watch are really a grind with a lot of hard work which people don't really care about as storyline. So you can't really judge a movie by how "true" it is to how the game actually works. That is why movies like Major League and Bad News Bears and The Natural and Field of Dreams can work while being obviously inaccurate or simplistic about the game itself. And the only movie I think you have underestimated is Field of Dreams. That's probably because it speaks specifically to a certain type of person - baby boomers who spent their early lives rebelling and being part of the counterculture and becoming jaded and unfulfilled and trying to find who they are and what is really important to them. It speaks to them very strongly so people either love it in the extreme or hate it in the extreme. I actually completely disagree with you about it monetizing nostalgia. I think that's embodied in JEJ's monologue when he says "for it's money they have and peace they lack" indicating that the money is totally unimportant. That is the key theme (redemption) for all the main characters (except Annie who is the "control" - she already knows, accepts, and loves her place in life). Movies like Major League and Bad News Bears are fun but have no deeper meaning or intent. Bull Durham strikes the best balance between reality/fantasy, comedy/drama, sublime/slapstick. The Natural is the most artistic/theatrical because the storyline is mooched from the Arthurian legend. What makes any baseball movie work is how well it elevates the game, as part of the story, to a mythical, magical level without being cheesy.<br /><br />In fact, that's the main thing wrong with Moneyball (although I kinda feel about Brad Pitt how you feel about Tom Selleck) is that it elevates the Moneyball concepts and importance in re-building the A's in a cheesy way to the detriment of the real talent on that team. It's a lot easier to lose Giambi and Damon and Isringausen when you have Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Chavez, Tejada, Dye, and Koch still there. I mean, please, does anyone really think it was Hatteburg and Rincon and Mabry who made that team great? It's a pleasant story but kind of elevates Billy Beane more than even Billy would agree with. (I do have to admit that the Dave Justice character nearly stole the show for me)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com