The scene that stuck out for me is when the tries to talk to Marcus Thames and Gary Sheffield before a mid-season game, and is shocked that they are too focused on preparing to play to talk to him. This comes right after a monologue he gives about how he is 100% certain players play harder knowing that they are on people's fantasy teams.

It was a lot like a scene in a pretty crummy documentary I saw a few months ago about these young filmmakers trying to track down John Hughes. One of them was convinced that despite the fact Hughes had withdrawn from public life for years, Hughes would be eager to talk to him because...gosh darn it, I like his movies! (As if the reason Hughes hadn't given interviews in the past several years was that no one likes his movies.)

There's a delusional arrogance to putting yourself in the centre of your documentary (don't know if that's accurate in Fantasyland, the guy they are following isn't the filmmaker I don't think, right?). I just don't get why that seems like such a popular way to do documentaries these days. That fellow who did that Simpsons documentary a few months ago really took the cake. I mean, you could make a pretty interesting documentary about the cultural impact of the Simpsons, but instead I found I was just following around some guy I didn't care about.

i thought the more telling scene was when he turned up at Shandler's house...I was just like, wow, this guy has no sense of acceptable social behaviour. He seems like the guy you make a trade with in your fantasy league just to shut him up. Perhaps the Tout Wars guys should've screened a little more carefully and 'put a Milo' on this dude, who was a pain to watch on screen. I loved the book but didn't enjoy the movie.

“Honestly, a real GM would be crushed badly in a league like Tout Wars,”

That's like saying Derek Jeter wouldn't be as good as you with a blow-up doll. Probably he wouldn't, no.

Not that dominating Steve Philips proves anything.

Why is it that the documentaries-about-obsessive-nerds genre has been so popular these last few years? It started with Spellbound, and continued on through Word Wars, Wordplay, The King of Kong, and now Fantasyland. Did I forget anything?

I'm sure I saw a poster for a LARPing documentary the other day.

I'm sure I saw a poster for a LARPing documentary the other day.

Are they re-releasing Darkon?

Why is it that the documentaries-about-obsessive-nerds genre has been so popular these last few years?

I don't think it's necessarily obsessive nerds, just obsessive people in general. Look at Man On Wire, Collapse, Grizzly Man, etc. Obsessives make good documentary subjects because they are different than ordinary people. An ordinary person might ride the elevator to the top of the World Trade Center, think it's a shame that oil is so necessary and think bears are cute. Only obsessives tightrope walk 1,360 feet in the air, devote their lives to describing a future world-without-oil and go live with wild animals.

I just don't get why that seems like such a popular way to do documentaries these days. That fellow who did that Simpsons documentary a few months ago really took the cake. I mean, you could make a pretty interesting documentary about the cultural impact of the Simpsons, but instead I found I was just following around some guy I didn't care about.

If it's the one I think you mean, "that guy" was Morgan Spurlock, who also did "Super Size Me". So in his case, he's just going with what he knows.

Why is it that the documentaries-about-obsessive-nerds genre has been so popular these last few years?

In movies, why does the disproportionately-hot lady pick the sweet-but-withdrawn guy in the end, instead of the charismatic jerk? It's wish fulfillment for the audience.

Nerds have money, and nerds like seeing movies about other nerds that portray those nerds in a positive light, because they're able to project themselves and their own nerdery into the nerds on screen.

Joe's point about obsession is also a good one. Think Werner Herzog.

Nerds have money

This is surprisingly true. A lot of my friends play D&D;fairly regularly, among other things, and the amount of money they drop on nerd products is incredible. You can never go wrong over-estimating how much a nerd is willing to part with for some new nerd product you create.

I must be a bad nerd, because I rarely spend money on my baseball nerd lifestyle. I mean, sure I pursue it at the expense of my relationships, jobs, direction in life, and free time...but money? Never!

I must be a bad nerd, because I rarely spend money on my baseball nerd lifestyle. I mean, sure I pursue it at the expense of my relationships, jobs, direction in life, and free time...but money? Never!

You're doing a PHD. You have no money to spend.

Nerds have money

You can save a ton of money living in your mom's basement and forgoing cool clothes or personal hygiene.

How about when Latkin gets hit right between the eyes by the ball in the bleachers at Wrigley..That was priceless.

There's a delusional arrogance to putting yourself in the centre of your documentary (don't know if that's accurate in Fantasyland, the guy they are following isn't the filmmaker I don't think, right?). I just don't get why that seems like such a popular way to do documentaries these days.

Because Michael Moore made millions doing it.

Because Michael Moore made millions doing it.

I guess by "a popular way" I meant not so much why is it a popular choice for filmmakers so much as, why is it so popular that a guy like Michael Moore can make millions doing it.

You're doing a PHD. You have no money to spend.

True. Though I am planning on spending every possible weekend in Belgium. That should eat up enough of my dough to make me seem like a good citizen.

I guess by "a popular way" I meant not so much why is it a popular choice for filmmakers so much as, why is it so popular that a guy like Michael Moore can make millions doing it.

Because Moore did a good job at it.

Because Moore did a good job at it.

Meh. I actually think that Michael Moore is at his best when he is behind the camera, and he steps back and lets other people tell their stories. The most powerful scenes in his movies are told from the perspective of people that are directly impacted by the subject of his films. He's excellent at putting a human face on problems, and show that they're not just a matter for idle debate.

When he puts himself in front of the camera to do stupid publicity stunts, or starts going off on his paranoid conspiracy theories, his movies fall apart. The more he talks, the more he comes across as a rambling idiot.

[quoteMeh. I actually think that Michael Moore is at his best when he is behind the camera, and he steps back and lets other people tell their stories.]

He's the worst thing in all his movies.

But the "obsessive nerds" documentary is a little different from what Moore does. It's not like Moore spends an entire movie following one person or group of obsessed people, though that might be an interesting next step for him, because he really is very adept at humanizing people who do and think strange things and placing them in a context that fits in with his big picture.

Meh. I actually think that Michael Moore is at his best when he is behind the camera, and he steps back and lets other people tell their stories. The most powerful scenes in his movies are told from the perspective of people that are directly impacted by the subject of his films. He's excellent at putting a human face on problems, and show that they're not just a matter for idle debate.

When he puts himself in front of the camera to do stupid publicity stunts, or starts going off on his paranoid conspiracy theories, his movies fall apart. The more he talks, the more he comes across as a rambling idiot.

I agree, but Moore isn't necessarily going to be objective about what works and doesn't work in his own movies, especially when the movie as a whole is well-received. If he gets good reviews and makes money, then as far as he's concerned he did something right. Why mess with a good thing? And people who are slavishly copying his formula aren't going to take time to think about whether individual parts of it work or not - they're just going to rip and run.

I guess part of it is about setting up Michael Moore as a brand, too. I mean, Errol Morris makes great documentaries, but how many people would recognize him if he walked up and punched them in the face? When was the last time you saw Errol Morris on TV, or paid to see an Errol Morris movie in a metroplex?

You can save a ton of money living in your mom's basement and forgoing cool clothes or personal hygiene.

forgoing having a girl friend....

Oddly enough I thought of Morris, because while he's invisible in his films, his technique is highly idiosyncratic. His films are as personalized as anybody's who ever directed a film.

And I actually did see Brief History, Fast Cheap, and Mr Death in multiplexes, though your general point that Morris is no Spielberg in the industry is well-taken.

Why is it that the documentaries-about-obsessive-nerds genre has been so popular these last few years?

Not just documentaries -- think The Big Bang Theory, think The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Movie studios are gearing their PR around ComicCon. We're in an Asperger-friendly era.

Not just documentaries -- think The Big Bang Theory, think The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Movie studios are gearing their PR around ComicCon. We're in an Asperger-friendly era.

Sadly, it is the wrong kind of nerd. Where is my 8 season television show documenting the several decades of diplomatic history leading up to World War One? I ask you!

EDIT: Though I guess Rome and the Tudors are examples of that type of pop culture.

Not just documentaries -- think The Big Bang Theory, think The 40-Year-Old Virgin

Moneyball: The Movie...

Though I guess Rome and the Tudors are examples of that type of pop culture.

A band I've overlooked, obviously.

Fittingly, I had a Magic: the Gathering ad on the side when reading this topic. I'm still waiting for the MTG documentary.

I'm still waiting for the MTG documentary

Title ideas:

Stalking the Black Lotus
Mana Live
Forestwalk with Me

... actually some Googling indicates that there are several such documentaries in the works, though they need better titles. One is called I Came to Game!

Sadly, it is the wrong kind of nerd. Where is my 8 season television show documenting the several decades of diplomatic history leading up to World War One? I ask you!

I know very little about this topic and think it could make an awesome TV show. Imagine if it were a Mad Men-style period lifestyle examination too.

I know very little about this topic and think it could make an awesome TV show.

If you're interested in that topic, I recommend the book Dreadnought, by Robert Massie. It's a fairly thorough and well-written examination of the time period.

If you're interested in that topic, I recommend the book Dreadnought, by Robert Massie. It's a fairly thorough and well-written examination of the time period.

It looks good. I am not much of a fan of military history, but the Amazon reviews suggest this covers a much wider ground than naval improvements.

... actually some Googling indicates that there are several such documentaries in the works, though they need better titles. One is called I Came to Game!

It's not uncommon at the tournaments I go to to see someone with a camera recording footage, though I imagine it's usually for a college class or something. I'm aware of I Came To Game's existence, and I imagine it will have a decent amount of focus on Dave Williams given that he's best known for something outside of Magic.

I am not much of a fan of military history, but the Amazon reviews suggest this covers a much wider ground than naval improvements.

It does. The follow-up book (Castles of Steel) is pretty much purely a military history, but Dreadnought just uses the naval arms race as an organizing principle of the book, which is more about the diplomatic and personal side of years leading up to the war.

I'm partial to AJP Taylor's "Struggle for Mastery in Europe". Though it can be quite dry at times, and is pretty much exclusively populated by foreign ministers and diplomats.

I haven't read "Dreadnought", but a quick glance tells me I did buy it at some point because there it sits on my book shelf. Your positive review will most likely get me to crack it open this weekend.

Title ideas:

Stalking the Black Lotus
Mana Live
Forestwalk with Me

Lets do the Time Walk Again.

or

Time Walk an Egyptian.

It started with Spellbound, and continued on through Word Wars, Wordplay, The King of Kong, and now Fantasyland. Did I forget anything?

Best In Show

The thing to remember with Michael Moore is that before him documentaries were largely anonymous. The directors did their interviews, had actors read narration, and kept things pretty dry and impersonal. There's a reason they were called "documentaries" and not "commentaries". What Moore did that made him so popular is personally relate to the audience. Regardless of the quality of his documentaries, or whether people have grown tired of his schtick now after having seen it multiple times, it was originally perceived as being incredibly innovative.

As for the plethora of documentaries covering obsessives and weird people, that's just part of our cultural need to point and laugh at those inferior to us. One series that comes to mind is "Stephen Fry in America", which is often a very interesting look at America from the POV of a Briton. But even though Fry did the show with the express purpose not to "sneer at the Americans", nonetheless his show contained a meetings with a Jewish Voodoo priestess, people living in an underground missile base, ecohouse dwellers, and Bigfoot believers, and visits the Transcendental Meditation headquarters in Iowa.

I really liked Fry in America, but I did notice that aspect of it as well.
I think I learned a lot more about the British and how they view Americans through that program than I did about Americans.

Also, watching Stephen Fry get progressively drunker in a whiskey distillery was more than worth the price of admission.

I imagine it will have a decent amount of focus on Dave Williams given that he's best known for something outside of Magic.

Dave Williams the pitcher?

The thing to remember with Michael Moore is that before him documentaries were largely anonymous. The directors did their interviews, had actors read narration, and kept things pretty dry and impersonal. There's a reason they were called "documentaries" and not "commentaries". What Moore did that made him so popular is personally relate to the audience. Regardless of the quality of his documentaries, or whether people have grown tired of his schtick now after having seen it multiple times, it was originally perceived as being incredibly innovative.

The format worked well with Roger & Me, because (1) at that point, Moore could still pass himself off as "everyman", and (2) the fate of Flint, MI had a direct impact on his life, and the lives of people he knew. It was a very personal project, and you could see that coming through througout the film.

When he tries to copy that format in other films, he gets diminishing returns out of it, until now he's basically a caricature of himself.

Dave Williams the pitcher?

Dave Williams the poker player, runner-up WSOP Main Event 2004.

If you're interested in that topic, I recommend the book Dreadnought, by Robert Massie. It's a fairly thorough and well-written examination of the time period.

Along the same lines, Tuchman's The Proud Tower is a great look at Europe leading up to the war.

It started with Spellbound, and continued on through Word Wars, Wordplay, The King of Kong, and now Fantasyland. Did I forget anything?

Best In Show

Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control.