tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6939088491504697922.post7956761547519122850..comments2023-06-19T03:01:07.672-05:00Comments on Ghostsnapper: How to slaughter a legacyGhostsnapperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15031831897418816030noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6939088491504697922.post-15383485099743469812010-10-16T09:49:04.661-05:002010-10-16T09:49:04.661-05:00Ian- How about all inaccuracies aside, it was just...Ian- How about all inaccuracies aside, it was just a bad movie? A lot of folks in the racing industry seem to be leaning on the crutch that people are criticizing Disney's "Secretariat" because of its inaccuracies. I'm fairly certain most film critics aren't horse racing afficionados, yet Rottentomatoes gave it a 65%. That's a "fair," in other words. There are several routes Disney could've gone about telling the tale of Secretariat, but it's documented in interviewes with Bill Nack that the filmmakers wanted to have a female protagonist, so they went with Chenery's story. That's fine, but as you pointed out, there wasn't a whole lot of obstacles to create drama. Instead of telling, the filmmakers needed to SHOW us why the Triple Crown is a big deal. What about having some stories/flashbacks about the horses who failed to win the Triple Crown to create drama? They could've played up how difficult a feat it is to win it, but instead they just said it once or twice, and nobody outside of the racing industry could understand the weight behind such a statement. So why not create more drama by depicting all the things that could go wrong on a Triple Crown campaign? <br /><br />As I said in my review, I could've forgiven all its inaccuraces until the filmmakers spoiled the Belmont by inserting that drama-killing song. After they performed that act of blasphemy, I felt it was fair game to point out at least a couple of the film's flaws. Believe me, there are plenty more than what I've outlined here. One example being, I mentioned "Seabiscuit" being a much better movie. You can't tell me that the character of Secretariat had one ounce of personality in comparison to the character of Seabiscuit in the movie. Why? They SHOWED the horse acting. They showed Seabsicuit angry in his stall, fighting his handlers, sleeping with Pumpkin and a dog, tossing his head, pawing the ground, just little things that made him more than a lawn ornament. They gave Secretariat no personality, and that was a very poor call on the filmmakers' part. It doesn't take much to show that a horse has personality, and he didn't have to be Mr. Ed to do it. In Nack's book, he talks about Secretariat picked up Eddie Sweat's rake in his mouth and proceeded to rake the shedrow with it. Not that this particular scene had to be portrayed, but little details like this make a huge difference in the feel and believability of a movie.Ghostsnapperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15031831897418816030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6939088491504697922.post-63120711830179550832010-10-16T00:30:59.443-05:002010-10-16T00:30:59.443-05:00I think that while the directing is heavy handed, ...I think that while the directing is heavy handed, the real problem is simply that everything that made Secretariat great also makes his story an unwatchable film. Movies need drama, and Secretariat was about dominance. The '27 Yankees would have also made for a bad film, too. In no way does that take away from his greatness, it just means you're bound to be disappointed if they're faithful to reality, and bound to be disappointed if they took liberties with the story.<br /><br />It's a lose - lose situation no matter if you do it on a modest budget or on a blockbuster budget.<br /><br />You brought up Seabiscuit. That movie worked because the story of the human connections as well as the horse were more compelling due to their flaws, due to the times, and also because so much time has gone by that the story was new to those who hadn't read Laura Hillenbrand's book. That movie also got a bigger budget because said book sold so many copies that there was clearly a market for that movie, which you can't say about Secretariat. <br /><br />Hollywood isn't a historical preservation society, it's an industry driven by profit. In the end, they made the most marketable version of the story they could, and they aimed it at families, not the niche market of racetrackers.<br /><br />In the end, you have a choice: you can geek out and pout about how they didn't do it just right, or you can enjoy the fact that for a few weeks, the outside world might just care a little about what arcane stuff you and I hold dear.Ian Lozadahttp://www.ianlozada.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6939088491504697922.post-61970242654936463642010-10-15T18:42:09.236-05:002010-10-15T18:42:09.236-05:00an insult to horseracing and the hardest working p...an insult to horseracing and the hardest working people in the world, the grooms and the jockeys.<br />screw disney, let oliver stone do it.<br />he would remember riva ridge!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6939088491504697922.post-3833464952641506872010-10-15T15:08:15.994-05:002010-10-15T15:08:15.994-05:00I saw Secretariat a few days after it's openin...I saw Secretariat a few days after it's opening and being an avid horse racing fan was extremely skeptical because of the absolute disaster that was Seabiscuit. <br />To my surprise I really, really enjoyed Secretariat! It was focused more on the story than the racing which was a downer for me, but Diane Lane did a tremendous job as Penny Tweedy (Chenery) and the racing sequences were shot with phenominal energy.<br />The Belmont was unfortunately ruined mid-stretch by a poor, out of character choice of music and Sham's connections were way over the top as the "villians" but it's a Disney film and liberties are always taken in movies. <br />Overall I think Disney succeeded in making a very wholesome, uplifting story that stayed remarkably accurate to the historical happenings.Brian Appletonhttp://railrunner.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com