*** Official MILLION DOLLAR BABY Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Quentin]

It is likely she would be charged with assault - a la some of the recent NHL problems.

But, this didn't really bother me. She may seem over-the-top aggressive, but female boxing is both a new thing as well as a poorly run thing right now.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Any fighter that is constantly hitting opponents that are still down on the canvas would not be tolerated, even in female boxing. This is too much over-the-top!






Crawdaddy

 

[JonZ]

As we've seen in boxing, people who put butts in the seats, even when their actions in the ring are dispicable are often allowed to box.

Its true we did see her punch after the bell, but weve seen that in real life to. The sneaked in elbows and such are more realistic. Ive seen Golota, Tyson, Tapia and others who are guilty of roughhouse tactics - biting,intentional headbutts,twisting necks in tieups, punching below the belt twisting arms during lockups and such. Nasem Hamed even back suplexed a guy once.


Edit:On the undercard of the Mayweather fight tonight,Sam Peter just lost 2 points for intentionally hitting a boxer who was down.

 

[WyattK]

dont know how any of you liked this movie. the boxing advisor on this movie should be shot.

 

[Brandon Conway]

It could have been about fishing and the basic core of the film - the character interactions - would have still made it a masterpiece.

 

[WyattK]

i guess you could say the characters were good but...

1. its seems very unlikley after a year and a 1/2 of formal training that shes at a stage to fight in a title fight

2. every match she had she won in the first round and not just the first round but the first 30 seconds. no one in the history of boxing has done that.

3. the other girl who hit her after the bell would have been disqualified and won she would have won the bout. so all the times where everyone says "but you lost" would be irrelevent

4. if she had such good medical care how could she have delvoped the thing with her leg

5. this is more of a filmmaking mistake than a factual one. she talked about how she was famous and had been in magizines and such, but this was never shown or indicated anywhere in the film

theres lots of other small things but i don't have the time to type them out those are just the huge glaring mistakes which if corrected could have made the film great but its just another mediocre film that could have been.

 

[Bryan Ri]

For what it's worth, Christopher Reeve passed away from the cist (or something similar, contract from long periods of not being able to move) on his body, and it's reasonable to assume that he had great medical care himself.

 

[WyattK]

actually Christopher reeve had a pressure ulcer which got infected but he had been paralyzed for about 9 years, it takes a while for those type of things to develop.

 

[Bryan Ri]

My mistake then

 

[Brandon Conway]

What would be the benefit to seeing this in the film? It's actually GOOD filmmaking to not show it, because it would move the film away from the characters. At what other part of the film does Eastwood leave his three primary characters? Never. It would stand out as being out of place with the story structure.

 

[WyattK]

no but it could have shown Eastwood's's character with the magazine or him seeing her with it and tell her no to let all of her newfound fame get to her head.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Right - forgot that one.

Eh, in the end, it's a fictional story about a fictional boxer who has a fictionally high level of talent and who fictionally loses a fight to someone whom in real life (non-fiction ) would be disqualified from, but in the fictional film isn't.

Well, so I suck and so does my argument. :b It's still the best film in 10 years.

I guess I was just too wrapped up in the story to let such insignificant details (IMO) distract me.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Even the greatest of films have their detractors so reading a minority opinion that MDB wasn't a good film isn't surprising to me at all. Furthermore, I can't think of a single film that you can't nitpick apart when it comes to details about the script. Anyhow, the film worked for me and it's one of the best films I've seen in years.






Crawdaddy

 

[JonZ]

"its seems very unlikley after a year and a 1/2 of formal training that shes at a stage to fight in a title fight"

She had been training herself. Now while that it fast, she also was 31 and at a maturity level its takes many fighters years to get to mentally.

"every match she had she won in the first round and not just the first round but the first 30 seconds. no one in the history of boxing has done that."

Mike Tyson? Made a career out of fast knockouts. Maybe not 30 seconds but first round.

"if she had such good medical care how could she have delvoped the thing with her leg"

I knew someone who spent 8 month lying in a hospital bed.She was getting sores and had to have a special bed, one with dsand in it that constantly moved around, brought in to keep such things for happening.

"this is more of a filmmaking mistake than a factual one. she talked about how she was famous and had been in magizines and such, but this was never shown or indicated anywhere in the film"

It didnt have to be.

 

[WyattK]

well before her fromal training she didnt have the mental toughness to keep her left hand up and as stated before she couldnt have had enough fights in that short of time to become a top contender

 

[Quentin]

You can nitpick all you want...but, none of the "facts" you mention matter to the core of the film. Not the boxing coreography, not the events.

But, I'll answer all your boxing problems with 3 words: IT'S WOMEN'S BOXING!! Who cares about the history of boxing? Who cares what is "likely"...if there is such a thing...IT'S WOMEN'S BOXING!!

As for pressure ulcers and bed sores...they do NOT take time to develop. Once you are paralyzed, they become a fact of life. They happen...the trick is to keep them from becoming infected. It's not always possible to stop such a thing. So, her leg issue was both plausible and realistic.

And, the answer to #5 is...it doesn't need to be shown. That is not a mistake. It is a choice by Eastwood.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Wyatt,

Have you ever seen Rocky? If so, do you like it? It seems that nearly every one of your problems with M$B are also present in Rocky.

• Noname becomes Heavyweight contender overnight
• Boxer has little little training before title match
• Boxer takes cheapshot after the bell.
• etc...

None of those situations were realistic either, but it has gone down as one of the greatest sports movies, if not greatest movies period.

I do have problems with M$B, but they're all very minor, and none of them are the same as the ones that apparently bother you. Another thing to remember is that this was an adapted story, and it seems like you don't like some of the story elements. Your beef should be with the author and not with Eastwood and company.

 

[WyattK]

ever read a book that you liked and then they made a movie about it and totally messed it up? did you not like the movie and then blame the book for not being good? whose to say it wasn't diffrent in the book and eastwood and company did blow it big time.

has any one read the stories the movie was based off of?

 

[Zen Butler]

Quite possibly the best Hollywood film I have seen in over a year. I'm still a bit emotionally drained from it. Swank was astounding, as was the supporting cast. Eastwood, as an actor though, was the biggest surprise . The chemistry between he and Swank was pitch perfect. They [Hollywood]still can bring the goods. I want to see it again.

+several minutes pass+

Still have butterflies from this one. This one will stick with me for a while.

 

[Eric Peterson]

No I haven't, so I can't say definitively, but I'll repeat that it seems like you have issues with MAJOR plot points, not small details that always piss off fans of the book.