BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Brad Pitt’s Moneyball gets new poster

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, July 22, 2011

Brad Pitt’s Moneyball gets new poster

(throws corn across room)

More posters have been revealed and this time for some interesting films. First off is the baseball dramedy MONEYBALL, starring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour Hoffman and directed by Bennett Miller. Pitt stars as Billy Beane, the General Manager of the Oakland A’s back in 2002 most known for using a modern analytical system to draft players. The poster is actually pretty lame and reminds me a little too much of FIELD OF DREAMS. However, the basic point is made, as in the film is about baseball and Brad Pitt has some big dreams of sorts.

Repoz Posted: July 22, 2011 at 02:12 PM | 55 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: athletics, media, reviews, sabermetrics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

1. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 22, 2011 at 02:25 PM (#3883228)

I don't know, I like it just fine.

Also, the Raven poster at this link is almost certinaly a Ralph Steadman production.

2. Greg K Posted: July 22, 2011 at 02:27 PM (#3883230)

I remember Craig Kilborn had a bit where he reviewed movie posters. I didn't realize people actually did that seriously.

Maybe it's been a while since I've seen one, but I'd have to figure anything that isn't just the two main characters posing in front of the title has to be an above average poster doesn't it?

3. Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Posted: July 22, 2011 at 02:45 PM (#3883238)

I assume Pitt, as Beane, is pondering about how he's won just as many World Series titles as gef the talking mongoose.

4. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:15 PM (#3883254)

I assume Pitt, as Beane, is pondering about how he's won just as many World Series titles as gef the talking mongoose.

Wow. I count the ringzzz argument. How original.

5. PreservedFish Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:16 PM (#3883255)

but I'd have to figure anything that isn't just the two main characters posing in front of the title has to be an above average poster doesn't it?

I read an article that compared movie posters with DVD covers. I think it was in McSweeney's, the fake daily newspaper edition, which makes it the rare piece of media that cannot be found via Google. Anyway, it exposed a trend that now seems obvious to me: movie posters are often terrific, DVD covers are often terrible. The movie poster may have an attractive design, and is kind of mysterious. But when the same movie comes out on DVD, even if the movie poster had the chance to become a kind of iconic image for the movie, the cover is switched to lowest common denominator stuff. Typically it just shows the heads of the famous actors.

I found this great example on a blog that discusses the same topic:

The Prestige poster

The Prestige DVD cover

I mean, I'm sure this is mostly true of artistically ambitious movies. I doubt that Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 has a mysterious, attractive poster. But when I checked the Transformers movies, the pattern held up there. The Transformers 1 posters are mostly images of a single robot each, staring over a landscape or cityscape. One is just a dark horizon with menacing robot eye behind it. But the DVD cover has the heads of 3 robots on the top, Mount Rushmore style, and the three human actors below.

6. PreservedFish Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:19 PM (#3883258)

How about this one:

Vertigo poster

Vertigo DVD cover

Obviously I can cherry pick, but it seems like the trend is real. In this case they take an iconic poster design, but decide that isn't enticing enough for the consumer, so they paste Jimmy Stewart's head on top of it.

7. The Piehole of David Wells

Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:31 PM (#3883263)

This seems like as good a time as any to plug my friend-of-a-friend's website: www.flixface.com

Zero word movie reviews. As the site says, "You don't 'read' movies. Why read reviews?" He just takes a picture of himself after he watches the movie. Pretty funny stuff.

When Moneyball comes out, I'll ask him to "review" it.

8. ...and Toronto selects: Troy Tulowitzki Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:33 PM (#3883264)

Not being snarky, but this was a noticed and documented trend a long time ago. Steven Soderbergh's next film just released a new poster in the style of 60/70's stuff. Clooney's 'The American' was done with that in mind as well.

9. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:54 PM (#3883272)

I mean, I'm sure this is mostly true of artistically ambitious movies. I doubt that Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 has a mysterious, attractive poster. But when I checked the Transformers movies, the pattern held up there. The Transformers 1 posters are mostly images of a single robot each, staring over a landscape or cityscape. One is just a dark horizon with menacing robot eye behind it. But the DVD cover has the heads of 3 robots on the top, Mount Rushmore style, and the three human actors below.

My 2 cents is that for the cinema version the producer is trying to build some intrigue and get you interested enough to seek it out. With a DVD the presumption is that you know what you are getting and the desire is to draw your attention that yes, this is the movie you are looking for.

10. OsunaSakata Posted: July 22, 2011 at 03:55 PM (#3883273)

Hey, Pitt! Get off my lawn!

11. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: July 22, 2011 at 04:01 PM (#3883278)

My 2 cents is that for the cinema version the producer is trying to build some intrigue and get you interested enough to seek it out. With a DVD the presumption is that you know what you are getting and the desire is to draw your attention that yes, this is the movie you are looking for.

...and in particular, that you might be looking at it on a smallish screen on a mobile device and they want to get across what they can in that very small footprint.

Book covers have become frequently awful--with enormous, samey text treatments--in recent years for basically this same reason.

12. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 22, 2011 at 04:13 PM (#3883286)

Alabama Puppy ####

13. Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Posted: July 22, 2011 at 04:30 PM (#3883299)

Wow. I count the ringzzz argument. How original.

Just making a point. Lack of championships doesn't mean a movie isn't warranted. Hell, I got a magazine cover just a few months ago.

14. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Posted: July 22, 2011 at 04:58 PM (#3883305)

#10 made me snort. Thanks.

15. Krusty Posted: July 22, 2011 at 04:58 PM (#3883306)

Just making a point. Lack of championships doesn't mean a movie isn't warranted. Hell, I got a magazine cover just a few months ago.

Ok, that might be the cutest thing I have seen in a while.

*crosses fingers, hopes this leads to a BBTF lolcat thread.*

...just to get started...

16. OCD SS Posted: July 22, 2011 at 05:25 PM (#3883319)

Also, the Raven poster at this link is almost certinaly a Ralph Steadman production.

Or Gerald Scarfe.

17. Fancy Pants Handle struck out swinging Posted: July 22, 2011 at 05:34 PM (#3883326)

*crosses fingers, hopes this leads to a BBTF lolcat thread.*

...just to get started...

Hell never make it as an ump, interfering with the runner like that. Terrible positioning...

18. Mr. Hotfoot Jackson (gef, talking mongoose) Posted: July 22, 2011 at 05:35 PM (#3883327)

*crosses fingers, hopes this leads to a BBTF lolcat thread.*

...just to get started...

Not lolcat per se, but I like this one

19. Benji Gil Gamesh VII - The Opt-Out Awakens Posted: July 22, 2011 at 05:43 PM (#3883329)

I CAN HAS FRANCOEUR?

20. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: July 22, 2011 at 05:58 PM (#3883334)

Is there a chance this movie won't be terrible?

21. Jittery McFrog Posted: July 22, 2011 at 06:03 PM (#3883336)

I CAN HAS FRANCOEUR?

Lolroyals

22. Famous Original Joe C Posted: July 22, 2011 at 06:22 PM (#3883338)

Alabama Puppy ####

Yes, Larry! Yes!

23. TerpNats Posted: July 22, 2011 at 06:22 PM (#3883340)

Is there any chance this movie could go back to the lab and, through the wonders of CGI effects, be turned into the story of the 2008 Tampa Bay Rays instead of the turn-of-the-millennium Oakland Athletics? (Pitt would now play Friedman.) If you stop it at the ALCS, you would have your requisite David-slays-Goliath happy ending.

24. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 22, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3883355)

WHERE ARE THE FLOATING HEADS?????

25. Jose is an Absurd Sultan Posted: July 22, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#3883358)

Is there a chance this movie won't be terrible?

The more I see and hear about it, the more I think it won't be. I think the big thing is going to be taking it as is rather than taking it as gospel.

26. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: July 22, 2011 at 07:07 PM (#3883368)

Is there a chance this movie won't be terrible?

No chance. Hollywood spent 5 years developing a movie about a baseball front office because it's guaranteed to suck.

27. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq., LLC Posted: July 22, 2011 at 07:13 PM (#3883371)

Yes, Larry! Yes!

Nice to see someone got that reference.

28. bads85 Posted: July 22, 2011 at 07:51 PM (#3883392)

Wow. I count the ringzzz argument. How original.

There is really no counting going on -- stuck on zero.

29. Krusty Posted: July 22, 2011 at 08:41 PM (#3883440)

The Mariners had a Cheezburger/ Internet meme NIGHT

...is TrollFace the M's manager?

EDIT: Royals fans :/

30. JimMusComp misses old primer... Posted: July 22, 2011 at 11:21 PM (#3883542)

#10 rocks. Plain and simple....

31. Karl from NY Posted: July 23, 2011 at 02:55 AM (#3883700)

2008 Tampa Bay Rays ... If you stop it at the ALCS, you would have your requisite David-slays-Goliath happy ending.

Oh heck you don't do that. Losing in the World Series is the perfect ending. Or do you not know Setting Up For The Sequel 101?

32. smileyy Posted: July 23, 2011 at 03:02 AM (#3883702)

[29] Third year in a row for that. I got the bobblehead last year.

33. Joe Kehoskie Posted: July 23, 2011 at 03:13 AM (#3883707)

Is there a chance this movie won't be terrible?

Sorkin might be a brilliant screenwriter, but it seems borderline impossible to take Moneyball and convert it into a movie that has both mass appeal and passes critical muster with, e.g., the BBTF crowd. But I'm looking forward to seeing it, and I'm glad it didn't die in pre-production, which had seemed likely at several points in the process.

34. Coot Veal and Cot Deal taste like Old Bay Posted: July 23, 2011 at 03:18 AM (#3883714)

Los Angeles Anaheim of Lolcat

35. Gotham Dave Posted: July 23, 2011 at 05:24 AM (#3883745)

I assume Pitt, as Beane, is pondering about how he's won just as many World Series titles as gef the talking mongoose.

Billy Beane had 82 PAs for the 1989 A's. Obviously that doesn't contradict the spirit of what you said, but I'm sure he still likes the ring.

36. AJMcCringleberry Posted: July 23, 2011 at 11:10 AM (#3883778)

I like the poster, and am looking forward to the movie.

The poster for The Raven is pretty cool too.

37. McCoy Posted: July 23, 2011 at 01:35 PM (#3883793)

Beane was also on the 1987 Twins as well. So that is two ringzz right there.

38. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 23, 2011 at 02:28 PM (#3883802)

I love the fact that this movie is coming out in a year in which the A's are a complete and total non-factor well before August. The studio had better hope that people on the fence about going to see the movie don't look at the standings, or they may wonder what the heck the big deal is. Talk about lousy timing.

39. McCoy Posted: July 23, 2011 at 02:37 PM (#3883806)

40. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 23, 2011 at 03:50 PM (#3883821)

Why would any movie goer care about where the A's are in the standings this year? Was that a problem for "Major League" as well? Or "Rookie of the Year" or any of the hundreds of other movies about baseball?

"Major League" and "Rookie of the Year" were fantasies, and "Moneyball" is, at least in theory, based on reality.

Of course, the main thesis of the movie and the book it's based on have since been proven to be more fantasy than reality, so maybe you do have a bit of a point there; perhaps most of the moviegoers won't care much that the story is a myth.

41. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 23, 2011 at 04:26 PM (#3883831)

Yeah, and wait until these imaginary moviegoers find out that "The Change-Up" isn't about Roger Craig at all!

I foresee rioting at the San Francisco theaters playing "Kung Fu Panda 2."

42. Infinite Yost (Voxter)

Posted: July 24, 2011 at 03:36 AM (#3884151)

He's watching you.

43. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 24, 2011 at 07:46 PM (#3884397)

Of course, the main thesis of the movie and the book it's based on have since been proven to be more fantasy than reality,

44. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 24, 2011 at 08:42 PM (#3884435)

Where is the proof? Just because you think that there is proof out there, doesn't mean that there is actually proof that the concept of moneyball has been proven false. In fact most evidence supports it.

That's cute, but you know darn well that I'm not talking about the general idea that statistics are important and that some statistics are much better than others.

I'm obviously talking about the Lewis-created myth that Billy Beane is the Warren Buffett of baseball front office men; some kind of ahead of his time visionary who is much smarter than all of his competitors.

Everyone who follows baseball closely now knows that it's a bunch of total bunk, that there's nothing special whatsoever about Beane or the A's. Even most of the guys who were still trying to gamely defend him three or four years have given up the ghost at this point.

45. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 24, 2011 at 08:52 PM (#3884440)

I thought the main thesis of the book is that you can do well by identifying and accumulating assets that others undervalue. I was not aware that this thesis had been proven false.

46. McCoy Posted: July 24, 2011 at 08:55 PM (#3884441)

I'm obviously talking about the Lewis-created myth that Billy Beane is the Warren Buffett of baseball front office men; some kind of ahead of his time visionary who is much smarter than all of his competitors.

Well, even if this was the point of the book that doesn't mean what is happening proves what was written then was false. Billy Beane could have been the best GM over some 5 year period during which Lewis wrote his book. Even Buffett loses money every now and then.

47. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 24, 2011 at 09:24 PM (#3884446)

I'm obviously talking about the Lewis-created myth that Billy Beane is the Warren Buffett of baseball front office men; some kind of ahead of his time visionary who is much smarter than all of his competitors

I don't think anyone has ever really thought that, they just thought that when you are dealing in a system that is set up where the resources of one competitor is vastly superior to another competitor, that finding ways to figure out what is undervalued that produces results would help you out more than relying on old school superstition.

Beane was successful in a system that generally rewards teams for spending a ton of money. He's not the only one, other teams could make a similar claim. You have the spend and slash method of the Marlins, or the be lucky to be in a crappily run division like the Twins etc.

The anti-stathead crowd has taken this book to be about stats, which is only part of the story. The point of the stat reliance is that at the time many organizations were relying on the equivalent of using leaches for modern surgery. The stat point is realizing that something so simple as just understanding what produces win on a seasonal level wasn't being exploited by their competitors. Another thing the book briefly touches on is that a short series is completely unpredictable in baseball, and you don't build for the post season.

48. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 24, 2011 at 09:44 PM (#3884455)

using leeches for modern surgery

49. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: July 24, 2011 at 09:48 PM (#3884456)

Another thing the book briefly touches on is that a short series is completely unpredictable in baseball, and you don't build for the post season.

Which ironically enough, had been conventional baseball wisdom for about a century before Billy Beane made his infamous crapshoot comment. Yet Bobby Cox never got any crap for saying "anything can happen in a short series" for a decade and a half of his Braves teams getting beat in the playoffs. Getting the breaks one time changes everything, I guess.

50. McCoy Posted: July 24, 2011 at 09:49 PM (#3884458)

If you want to talk about a team that is lucky to be playing in a crappy division the conversation should start and end with the St. Louis Cardinals.

51. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 24, 2011 at 09:52 PM (#3884460)

Even Buffett loses money every now and then.

I'm pretty sure that Buffett has never lost money five years in a row.

52. McCoy Posted: July 24, 2011 at 09:57 PM (#3884462)

Billy Beane has had 5 losing seasons in a row?

53. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 24, 2011 at 10:06 PM (#3884467)

Billy Beane has had 5 losing seasons in a row?

Fine, I'm pretty sure that Buffett has never had a five year stretch where he lost money four of the years and broke even on one.

54. cardsfanboy

Posted: July 24, 2011 at 10:35 PM (#3884478)

If you want to talk about a team that is lucky to be playing in a crappy division the conversation should start and end with the St. Louis Cardinals

In relation to having a crappy division, teams like the Cardinals, Astros and even the Cubs had to always compete against another team that was run well for several years. The Al Central had the Royals and the Tigers stinking up the joint, the Indians entering a rebuilding period, and the White Sox, the situation was ripe for a team with a low payroll that didn't waste money on veteran goodness. (roughly speaking I'm talking about 1999-2006) In the NL Central you had the Cubs spending money and the Astros consistently being competitive along with the Cardinals also spending money. I don't think the Cardinals are really in a comparative boat. The NL Central is a crappy division, but there because of the number of teams, there are always as many if not more competitors.

Fine, I'm pretty sure that Buffett has never had a five year stretch where he lost money four of the years and broke even on one.

Just because I was having fun, but even the Yankees have had a stretch of 5 years where they finished below .500 4 times. It happens. Of course the movie Money ball covers a different time period than the current A's stretch, but why let that little factoid get in the way of your obsession.(I'm trying to figure out who is the most obsessive counter arguer that is clearly wrong between Tommy in CT on Blyleven, SBB on Jack Morris, True Blue on anything, or Joey B on his obsession with Beane or Olberman)

55. Joey B. is counting the days to Trea Turner Posted: July 24, 2011 at 10:53 PM (#3884481)

Just because I was having fun, but even the Yankees have had a stretch of 5 years where they finished below .500 4 times. It happens.

I know, and that's my entire point: Beane's A's are no different from pretty much any other franchise, and Beane is no different from pretty much any other GM. OK, he is probably above average, but nothing more than that. There is nothing particularly special or magical whatsoever about his ability to identify talent and make deals, and he has no keen, deep insight into the game that make him stand out above and beyond all the others. Yes, he had a very good run of teams in the early years, but that had as much to do with Sandy Alderson and steroids as it did with Beane himself.

And as far as my "obsession" goes, I'm not the one flacking this stupid movie, it's the few remaining diehard Beanebags who are doing that.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, July 22, 2011

Brad Pitt’s Moneyball gets new poster

Reader Comments and Retorts

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Hot Topics