Money Ball the movie

If 99.9 percent of the movie-viewing audience didn't know any different (as in this case), they could.

 

One quick thing: I didn't think the movie said the A's traded for Jeremy Giambi, but just that they should start him. Of course, I did have the knowledge that he was on the team so maybe my point of view was skewed.

 

I haven't read the book.

I did see the movie, and I enjoyed it, although I thought it dragged a little bit.

But after reading the controversial Chronicle article linked above, I like the movie a whole lot less.

(Spoilers below)

DePodesta was already with the team? Well there goes one of the most enjoyable scenes in the movie.

Jeremy Giambi was already with the team? Well there goes another one of the most enjoyable scenes in the movie.

Combined, these two storylines make for about 60 percent of the dramatic driving force of the film -- and yet, neither are accurate in the least.

And GMs don't go to player's houses, ever? Since I've heard of that kind of thing happening in football, I figured it also rang true in baseball.

Grady Fuson wasn't a roadblock to Beane's plan? Beane's job was never in jeopardy? There goes about another 20 percent of the dramatic storyline!

Damn, there's not much at all in this movie that happened in real life...and although I know it was not a documentary, the movie was presented as being based-on-facts, and I'd argue that in virtually no way is that true.

Really diminishes the movie for me.

 

No, it doesn't diminish the movie.. It diminishes real life.

The movie's job is to entertain you, which it did. If it had been accurate, it couldn't have entertained you as well. That's called a documentary, and not many of those make a lot of money.

 

You, nor anyone else making this argument, get to ever complain about My Boys or Everybody Loves Raymond or anything else ever again.

 

Umm, did your mind wander off when it got to this part of my post?

 

You said the facts made you like the movie less. And I said the movie should stand on its own, regardless of the facts, because that's how it intended.

We could also argue about the term "based on facts." I think "based on" is pretty broad, and I do believe enough of this movie was true that it meets the movie standard for "based on."

 

Was aware, and respect that, but different strokes . . .

I'll have to mull my personal list of disappointing baseball novels, and will report back.

 

Mark Zuckerberg said The Social Network in no way resembled life at Harvard or much of anything else that happened but people still enjoyed the movie.

As for the Coke machine and paying for it. Of the minor league teams I'm familiar with, those guys have to pay for their own drinks but not when a big leaguer is down and the machine becomes free. The post-game spread also goes from sandwiches to steaks but that's neither here nor there.

I've read stories about other franchises going on the cheap and players having to pay for Cokes at the machine. To me, that's the ultimate symbol of a franchise trying not to spend money.

It doesn't matter that the As players got their Cokes for free. And, in fact, a fairly minor quibble. Just because it wasn't perfectly true doesn't mean that it isn't great symbolism in the movie.

 

I can't wait for "Band of Brothers II," when Easy Company liberates Stalingrad. Based on a true story of course.

 

Yeah but I don't think a lot of people think they're seeing a work of fiction. There is a decent-sized war of words going on out in the Bay Area between Billy Beane and Art Howe over Howe's portrayal -- should Art Howe be OK with being made to be the asshole when that's about the furthest thing from the truth?

Another example: "The Express" created a scene where Ernie Davis faced the worst and most virulent racism during a game at West Virginia. That movie also was based on a historical book. But the incident never happened. Yet anyone who saw that movie, in addition to being colossally disappointed in what was a terrible film, walk away with the impression that that happened. That isn't OK.

 

It is great symbolism, I agree.

Of course, the same symbolism was used to greater effect in "Major League" when the Indians had to fire up the lawnmower motor to get the whirlpool to work.

Just because the A's had/have a low payroll doesn't mean the players are treated like they're in Double-A. It's cliche, and it's a throwaway scene that's completely made-up.