Secretariat: The Movie, Whoa! - Page 3

Danzig · #41 10-09-2010, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaTH716

If you really think about it, they probably should hope that some die hard racing fans stay away from it, because they are going to be the most critical about it. You would think that many of the people are going to complain about footage being filmed at other tracks than the original and elements of the story that are exaggerated or wrong. If anything there is a chance that they will talk people out of going to see the film.
If this film is going to do any damage at the box office, they are going to need mainstream America's support. But even if they kill it this weekend, what possible racing movie would they really consider doing?

one on zenyatta!

Danzig · #42 10-09-2010, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phalaris1913

I have read a review that suggested there was an "underdog" element to the movie. Is this true? If so, what did they have to do to contrive "underdog"-ness either for Secretariat himself or his connections?

from what i've read, it involves penny chenery and her moving in a mostly male world of horse racing. i guess some of the men are portrayed in a less than flattering light.

Merlinsky · #43 10-09-2010, 10:22 AM

Secretariat had a $35 mil budget, Sebiscuit was $87 mil. Can you tell in terms of production values?

Box office is going be a bit funky this weekend. There's a Katherine Heigl movie out and she always has a shot at number one. God only knows why people still go. Women drag their bf/husband so that doubles the ticket sales. She has ability and for some reason ends up with Jennifer Aniston reject movies which I refuse to watch.

The Social Network's got good word of mouth in week 2 and is a contender for a few Oscars, especially screenplay. It and the Heigl movie are neck and neck for the lead right now, but Secretariat's not too far back. After Saturday we'll have a better idea. Initially I was disappointed it wasn't opening as big as I thought it would, then I realized all 3 movies I just mentioned would finish behind Seabiscuit's opening weekend which was a tad earlier in 2003 I think. Seabiscuit came out in 5th place its week at just under $21 mil.

Princess Doreen · #44 10-09-2010, 06:59 PM

We saw Secretariat yesterday. For those in the audience (many of whom didn't know Secretariat actually won the Triple Crown), it was a good movie. I had to squint and keep from groaning at the myriad of inaccuracies - inaccuracies that could have been avoided.

That being said, Diane Lane was superb and John Malkovich made me believe he was Lucien Lauren.

It might get people interested in horse racing if horse racing was accessible on national tv. But, what's the odds of that happening?

Also, bought the SECRETARIAT memorial book that DRF put out. Worth $10 - lots of new info and good pictures.

TheSpyder · #45 10-10-2010, 06:10 AM

I'll wait for the play..should be good on Broadway

deltagulf · #46 10-10-2010, 08:02 AM

opening week-end its # 3 13 plus million so i guess its not to bad. we'll see

Mike · #47 10-10-2010, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GBBob

But..everything you are critical of the general population either a) Won't know or B) Will eat it up..Look...exposure is exposure and given the choice between a hokey Disney piece on Secretariat and an open piece on Horse Racing by Oliver Stone...I'll take hokey. There have been so many ridiculous 'baseball" movies..most involving Kevin Costner..over the years that as a baseball purist, make me vomit, but the GP loves that crap. Horse Racing needs more drivel and less reality sometimes.

Oliver Stone doing a movie would be more likely to appeal to the dark souls likely to get hooked on racing

Horse racing historians, any thoughts on a topic Stone could take on?

Indian Charlie · #48 10-10-2010, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Oliver Stone doing a movie would be more likely to appeal to the dark souls likely to get hooked on racing

Horse racing historians, any thoughts on a topic Stone could take on?

Synthetic surfaces being mandated in California.

Danzig · #49 10-10-2010, 10:57 AM

trainers and their ability to grow their business after a long suspension for drugs.

Riot · #50 10-10-2010, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike

Oliver Stone doing a movie would be more likely to appeal to the dark souls likely to get hooked on racing

Horse racing historians, any thoughts on a topic Stone could take on?

Shergar. But Stone would probably rather love Alydar and conspiracy.

Indian Charlie · #51 10-10-2010, 11:05 AM

How about a Stone expose on jockey licensing.

I'd love to have it revealed that jockeys must fail an IQ test to become licensed.

Scav · #52 10-10-2010, 11:14 AM

Roger Ebert's review, who has been a long time friend of Bill Nack, gives it 4 stars and says it is in the running for film of the year

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/101009986

RockHardTen1985 · #53 10-10-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Secretariat had a $35 mil budget, Sebiscuit was $87 mil. Can you tell in terms of production values?

Box office is going be a bit funky this weekend. There's a Katherine Heigl movie out and she always has a shot at number one. God only knows why people still go. Women drag their bf/husband so that doubles the ticket sales. She has ability and for some reason ends up with Jennifer Aniston reject movies which I refuse to watch.

The Social Network's got good word of mouth in week 2 and is a contender for a few Oscars, especially screenplay. It and the Heigl movie are neck and neck for the lead right now, but Secretariat's not too far back. After Saturday we'll have a better idea. Initially I was disappointed it wasn't opening as big as I thought it would, then I realized all 3 movies I just mentioned would finish behind Seabiscuit's opening weekend which was a tad earlier in 2003 I think. Seabiscuit came out in 5th place its week at just under $21 mil.

I took a guy from work to see Let Me In last night, at a small older theater... It was packed. And I think that movie has been out for a while.

Indian Charlie · #54 10-10-2010, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockHardTen1985

I took a guy from work to see Let Me In last night, at a small older theater... It was packed. And I think that movie has been out for a while.

Did he put out?

RockHardTen1985 · #55 10-10-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Did he put out?

No, but Im likely in trouble. I got a phone call this morning. He could not sleep and was having nightmares, talking about vampires.

Indian Charlie · #56 10-10-2010, 12:12 PM

You should cuddle.

Cannon Shell · #57 10-10-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

one on zenyatta!

Then Ebert and company could get death threats when they call the plot unimaginative and cowardly.

GenuineRisk · #58 10-10-2010, 02:45 PM

Saw it last night. Almost so bad it's good, but not quite. Thanks for the budget numbers, Merlinsky; that explains why it looked so bad. It was either shot on a combination of film and video or entirely on video and then transferred to film (poorly). Also explains why there were so many scenes of people sitting around talking about things instead of showing those things happening. I don't think there was a single scene of Malkovich's character actually training a horse.

And the dialogue is really clunky. They should give Diane Lane an honorary Oscar just for all the as God is my witness I'll never be hungry again speeches she had to deliver.

The best part was the two people sitting behind us.
Diane Lane: "Daddy, this is Big Red."
Lady Behind Us: "I THOUGHT HIS NAME WAS SECRETARIAT."

Merlinsky · #59 10-10-2010, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The best part was the two people sitting behind us.
Diane Lane: "Daddy, this is Big Red."
Lady Behind Us: "I THOUGHT HIS NAME WAS SECRETARIAT."

May God inspire a woman like that to bet on racehorses. Talk about dumb money.

Yeah I did a double take when I realized the budget was so different. Another point about the shooting of the movie, I heard the director said they tried to shoot the racing with better cameras, but it looked lousy so they did it with cheap $800 cameras and it supposedly looked better. No idea how bad it must've been to not go with the original footage.

The Seabiscuit book was such a phenomenon. People who didn't normally follow the sport got interested in the film because the book was big. There's another book about a horse being adapted for the screen. Steven Spielberg's doing a film based on the novel War Horse. http://www.filmofilia.com/2010/05/06...rgs-war-horse/

randallscott35 · #60 10-10-2010, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Saw it last night. Almost so bad it's good, but not quite. Thanks for the budget numbers, Merlinsky; that explains why it looked so bad. It was either shot on a combination of film and video or entirely on video and then transferred to film (poorly). Also explains why there were so many scenes of people sitting around talking about things instead of showing those things happening. I don't think there was a single scene of Malkovich's character actually training a horse.

And the dialogue is really clunky. They should give Diane Lane an honorary Oscar just for all the as God is my witness I'll never be hungry again speeches she had to deliver.

The best part was the two people sitting behind us.
Diane Lane: "Daddy, this is Big Red."
Lady Behind Us: "I THOUGHT HIS NAME WAS SECRETARIAT."

Disney has cut costs for years. Even their G rated flicks look cheap these days.