Hope this is a good movie.

I ALREADY INTEGRATE AROUND THE CLOCK!

In 15 years, Denzel Washington will play Kenny Williams in "81: The Adam Dunn Story" about Dunn's historic 2012 HR record.

catchers...thought they smell bad... on the OUTSIDE...

Buzzie Bavasi: Sir, the possibility of successfully integrating Major League Baseball is approximately 3,720 to 1.

Branch Rickey: Never tell me the odds!

"That's great kid - don't get cocky."

Back door? Good idea.

I went to grade school with Harrison Ford's wife. Before she let herself go.

"Boring speech anyway"

- Rickey's last words.

I thought there was some sort of project on the way where Robert Redford would be Branch Rickey (although I don't think they ever cast a Robinson*).


*Actually, I have to think that Jackie Robinson is probably in the category of roles that should ALWAYS be done by either a relative unknown or Jackie Robinson. I mean, it's such a iconic individual that to cast a "name" for him would probably not be a good idea as there would be no way a already known actor could live up to the expectations involved. Does anybody know what I mean by this?

I went to grade school with Harrison Ford's wife.

Which one?

True Story:

When a bunch of my friends suggested we go see "Mystic River" I kept hearing "Mr. Gribber". Then had a moment of realization in the opening credits. Then forgot forementioned realization and at one point asked the guy next to me about Laurence Fishburne, "so is HE Mr. Gribber?".

The guy in the Pujols thread who said BTF fans are smarter than the average ESPN poster clearly wasn't referring to me.

Does anybody know what I mean by this?

I know exactly what you mean. I find having a "name" actor takes me out of biopics. Though as a general rule of thumb biopics are about my least favourite type of movie.
I haven't seen that movie, but I've also heard that Jackie Robinson playing Jackie Robinson was a horrendous mistake too.

I haven't seen that movie, but I've also heard that Jackie Robinson playing Jackie Robinson was a horrendous mistake too.

Yeah, but he looked just like him!

Was DiCaprio busy?

Yeah, an older, fatter version of him. It was, sadly, unwatchable.

His work in “Cowboys and Aliens” probably put him over the top.

OK, I've never seen the movie, but it seems a little odd that his work in "Cowboys and Aliens" would give him just that necessary bump to win a coveted role. Was there something particularly Rickeyian about his alien-fighting* performance that really sold the producers of "42" on ol' Harrison's appropriateness for the part?

* Or, cowboy-fighting, whatever the case might be.

The best part of The Jackie Robinson Story is where Marvin Robinson tells his cousin Jackie that this kid from the future brought something called "steroids" with him that maybe is what Jackie's been searching for to break into the big leagues.

I've never seen the movie, but it seems a little odd that his work in "Cowboys and Aliens" would give him just that necessary bump to win a coveted role.

I'm thinking sarcasm.

  Related News: General, Business, Media, Television, History, Negro Leagues, Special Topics, LA Dodgers, NY Mets, NY Yankees

Why the Mets and Yankees tags? Because there's no Brooklyn Dodgers tag? There's no need for another thread about Robinson's NL NY legacy belonging to the Mets, is there?

His work in “Cowboys and Aliens” probably put him over the top.

Ford is one of my all-time favorite actors, but his work in that movie was so bad, and the movie so bad, that I walked out of it.

*Actually, I have to think that Jackie Robinson is probably in the category of roles that should ALWAYS be done by either a relative unknown or Jackie Robinson. I mean, it's such a iconic individual that to cast a "name" for him would probably not be a good idea as there would be no way a already known actor could live up to the expectations involved. Does anybody know what I mean by this?

Yes.
I'm hoping this Chadwick Boseman person talks like Richard Pryor's impression of white people, because that's exactly how Jackie Robinson sounded.

I haven't seen that movie, but I've also heard that Jackie Robinson playing Jackie Robinson was a horrendous mistake too.

Dick Williams appears in that movie. Yeah, that Dick WIlliams. He's a pitcher who gives up a Robinson home run. Then when the shot cuts to Robinson circling the bases, Williams is suddenly the second baseman somehow.

It's not supposed to be much of a movie.

Cowboy and Aliens wasn't a bad movie. Not the greatest, but the minimalist plot was intentional and I think if you just enjoyed the movie for what it was, I think you had a good time.

Now Green Lantern, that was a crappy movie.

This is Rickey calling on behalf of Rickey. Rickey wants to be in films. Rickey is the greatest of all time.

I'm thinking sarcasm.

I didn't pay attention to the source of the FA. I suspect you're right.

I can't really see Harrison Ford as Branch. Harrison isn't a character actor and he only knows how to play one character, himself. Can anyone here actually imagine him acting?

Cowboy and Aliens wasn't a bad movie. Not the greatest, but the minimalist plot was intentional and I think if you just enjoyed the movie for what it was, I think you had a good time.

Now Green Lantern, that was a crappy movie.

I'm somebody who simply wants to be entertained when I watch a movie and that movie was pretty much a flatliner. I think Roger Ebert summed it up best when he said something like they could have made one hell of a good western flick with that cast but instead created a pretty crappy mashup.

Just watched "In Time" and it made me wonder why Olivia Wilde can only seem to get stupid parts in Hollywood and if that is true why she left House to do that.

Yogi tagged first.

Actually, I have to think that Jackie Robinson is probably in the category of roles that should ALWAYS be done by either a relative unknown

I can see your point (not sure I agree with it) but, realistically, is there a "big name" black actor young enough to play Robinson? I suppose we could CGI Will Smith onto a 25-year-old body.

Nelsan Ellis and Donald Glover.

He's perfect for the role . . as long as Branch Rickey always spoke a half beat too slow.

He acts... poorly.

Nelsan Ellis and Donald Glover.

The guy who plays the #5 role on True Blood and the guy who plays the #7 role on Community are "big names"?

The Jackie Robinson Story was just about what you might have expected from the Hollywood of 1950, and though it might have been improved with (say) Juano Hernandez** in the title role, no sports biopic back then (and maybe even now) had the slightest intention of sticking to actual facts. But mediocre as it was, it was still miles above such cosmic jokes as The Pride of The Yankees or The Babe Ruth Story.

To do this new movie right, it's going to need an actor whose physical movements suggest that he's at least played baseball on the high school or college level, and it's going to take an absolute determination on the part of the screenwriter and the producer to stick to the facts of Robinson's life and not fudge them in order to put over some "higher truth". Whether Hollywood is ever going to be capable of such an accomplishment is still an open question.

OTOH at least we probably won't have any scenes of Jackie cross-dressing and kissing Branch Rickey on the lips, so it won't descend to the level of J. Edgar. Sometimes there is something to be said for family vetting.

**Hernandez is the actor who played the very Jackie Robinson-like Lucas Beauchamp in the 1949 film adaptation of Faulkner's Intruder in the Dust, far and away the most realistically written role given to a black Hollywood actor up to that point.

But mediocre as it was, it was still miles above such cosmic jokes as The Pride of The Yankees or The Babe Ruth Story.

Really? The Jackie Robinson Story is just amateurish. It's embarrassingly painful to watch. It's not in the contest for bad because it doesn't pass a threshold of competence even. It's Plan 9 From Outer Space of biopics.

OTOH at least we probably won't have any scenes of Jackie cross-dressing and kissing Branch Rickey on the lips, so it won't descend to the level of J. Edgar.

Ha ha, J. Edgar was such s##t. It's the worst movie I've seen this year, and that includes Cowboys & Aliens and Green Lantern. And The Green Hornet, for that matter. And since Redford came up, I'll throw The Conspirator in there also, because it was awful.

But not as bad as J. Edgar. Meanwhile, I'm not sure if a Jackie Robinson movie from the director of A Knight's Tale sounds like all that good of an idea.

But mediocre as it was, it was still miles above such cosmic jokes as The Pride of The Yankees or The Babe Ruth Story.

Really? The Jackie Robinson Story is just amateurish.

No question. But those other two were professional in name only. C'mon, Morty, can you even look at the action scenes in those movies without cringing? Gary Cooper (who wasn't even lefthanded, for crissakes) is about as athletic as Helen Keller on a baseball diamond, and as Babe Ruth, William Bendix plays a great Chester A. Riley.

And that's not even counting the cookiecutter portrayal of the Gehrig family, Hollywood ethnic accents included, and the historical fabrications in both films that could fill a book if you tried to list them. I'm not trying to defend The Jackie Robinson Story for a minute, but compared to those Gehrig and Ruth movies, it was like a speeding ticket as opposed to a pair of carjackings. I can see why Billy Crystal might gush over them, but not anyone with a slightly more objective POV.

I'm not exactly a Yankees fan (to say the very least), but I'd love to see a new version of Pride of the Yankees, with a good young actor in the lead role. (Maybe base it on this book...)

The problem with doing a biopic on Gehrig is that outside of his extraordinary baseball ability, Lou doesn't seem to be that interesting a guy. He really was just an ordinary fellow. The most interesting thing about him personally was that he was kind of a mama's boy who fell in love with a strong woman, perhaps one very much like his mother, and the two women never got along. They both claimed overlapping territorial rights on Lou. That could be an interesting (and maybe innovative) movie, I think, but I don't see one ever being made in that light.

I'm not exactly a Yankees fan (to say the very least), but I'd love to see a new version of Pride of the Yankees, with a good young actor in the lead role. (Maybe base it on this book...)

I'd love to see a good movie based on the life of any real baseball player, but I don't think that Hollywood has the slightest capability of doing it. Certain players lend themselves too easily to hagiography (Gehrig, Robinson), while others can too easily be cast as cartoon villains (Cobb, Bonds). And this doesn't even get into the problem of coming up with a group of actors who look as if they've ever swung a bat or thrown a baseball in their entire lives. They're much better off sticking to lovers and gangsters.

I think a great movie/HBO series type thing could be done on Ted Williams, if the creators could somehow find a way to preclude the lawsuits by his children so as to portray all the elements of his character in conflict with each other. This man was truly a complex figure, even in the most literary sense. Williams is both traditional hero and dark anti-hero. I don't see it as something to be rendered in a straightforward chronological fashion.

He's perfect for the role . . as long as Branch Rickey always spoke a half beat too slow.

So, a Pat Summerall biopic then.

Murder.............She Wrote.

I think "biopic" would be far and away my least favorite type of film... I think I'd rather sit through a bad romantic comedy than a good biopic.

The only biopic I think I really enjoyed was Patton.

Looking through the list that wikipedia has of "biographical films"... Downfall was excellent, but I guess I wouldn't necessarily call it a 'biography'. I liked Ed Wood OK, though I think it's a bit overrated. Beyond that? Not a whole lot... among sports biopics? It's probably apostasy here - and I'm well aware of the supposed liberties taken by Stump and the movie - but I enjoyed Cobb, though more as a 'buddy film' than a good biopic. I don't really even care for Brian's Song, to be honest.

Sam Rice is not exactly a household name, but I think he would make a great biopic.

Just saw In Time. What a waste of a perfectly good sci-fi concept.

Just saw In Time. What a waste of a perfectly good sci-fi concept.

What a waste of a perfectly good title for the long-awaited Morris Day biopic.

Branch Rickey: I did not kill Ray Chapman!
Ban Johnson: I don't care!

Well, if The Ten Commandments is a biopic, that's pretty loose. So here's some entertaining ones at least:

Young Mr. Lincoln (a Ford masterpiece, or close to it)

Sergeant York (a really underrated movie)

They Died With Their Boots On.

Gentleman Jim

The Great Moment (different and interesting, if ultimately a failure)

Chief Crazy Horse (with Victor Mature, no less)

Broken Arrow (James Stewart and Jeff Chandler, a damn fine movie, maybe the best movie ever about racial reconciliation)

Carbine Williams (a really tough portrayal by J. Stewart of a guy who was kind of a horse's ass)

Buffalo Bill (beautifully filmed with Joel McCrea look like a hippie paragon)

Jim Thorpe--All American (a good movie, affecting performance by Lancaster, who was at least an athlete)

Viva Zapata

To Hell and Back (Audie Murphy's life could make a compelling movie--this movie is good, but too nice)

Birdman of Alcatraz (yeah, it's mostly a lie, but it's a fine movie with a superb lead performance)

The Miracle Worker (two excellent performances)

Lawrence of Arabia (definitely a great movie with a great lead performance)

I think a great movie/HBO series type thing could be done on Ted Williams, if the creators could somehow find a way to preclude the lawsuits by his children so as to portray all the elements of his character in conflict with each other. This man was truly a complex figure, even in the most literary sense. Williams is both traditional hero and dark anti-hero. I don't see it as something to be rendered in a straightforward chronological fashion.

I suppose it's theoretically possible to make a great movie about Williams, Robinson, Cobb, Bonds, or Ruth, since all of those players have multiple sides worthy of exploration. The problem is that you'd have one set of people wanting to cover up all the bad sides and another group wanting to overemphasize them, and you'd wind up with the worst of both worlds. And then you'd have a third group who'd insist on making it "a baseball movie for people who don't necessarily care about baseball," a brilliant idea which leads to cheesy soap operas like Bang The Drum Slowly, though at least that joke had the excuse of being based on a novel rather than a real ballplayer. It's hard enough to find movies of any type that don't shamelessly try to manipulate your emotions, but to try to get great and complicated historical subjects "right" is asking a bit too much of our current corporate-infotainment complex.

----------------------------

I think "biopic" would be far and away my least favorite type of film... I think I'd rather sit through a bad romantic comedy than a good biopic.

The only biopic I think I really enjoyed was Patton.

I agree with your general point, and even with Patton, Hollywood altered his most famous speech to the point where it didn't really convey its full force. Even in 1970, the unvarnished subject was too much for our movie industry to handle.

About the only half-realistic biopic I can remember was Malcolm X, but I'm sure if I saw it again I'd probably start to notice all the discrepancies in that one, too. The late Manning Marable gave only incidental mention to it in his recent Malcolm X biography, which I'm not sure is a good thing or a bad thing.