MovieChat Forums > Little Big League (1994) Discussion > Little Big League Vs. Rookie of the Year

Little Big League Vs. Rookie of the Year


This is a topic that has sparked much controversy amongst my friends and I.

Which film is better, Little Big League or Rookie of the Year?

I know that there are other kid baseball films that could be taken into consideration like "The Sandlot" and "Angels in the Outfield", however "Rookie of the Year" and "Little Big League" have basically the same set up, a boy with no father and two friends is given the opportunity to be apart of a Major League baseball team.

My Stance.

I am going to have to go ahead and say that Little Big League is a much better movie. It was over shadowed by the success of "Rookie of the Year" and given no credit.

For starters, Little Big League is actually a very well written movie. For example, the scene right before the Twin's big game against the Mariners where the entire team is trying to figure out a math problem instead of getting ready for the game, hilarious.

Next, there's authenticity. Little Big League is a great Baseball Movie, it features great baseball players like Ivan Rodriguez, Randy Johnson, and Ken Griffey Jr at the peak of his career, great baseball parks, yankee stadium, fenway park, and finally, the choreography, I get chills every time I see the plays they pull of in this movie.

The kid in Little Big League, Luke Edwards, is much better than the kid in Rookie of the Year, Thomas Ian Nicholas. It can be argued that Nicholas is a better actor, however Edwards is much more tolerable. Nicholas was really effin annoying.

To wrap this up I have two words, freeze frame. Both films end with a freeze frame, although Rookie of the Year ends with Nicholas revealing his new world series ring, but the events leading up to it where Nicholas snaps his head up and he has this stupid smile on his face, real lame. Whereas Edwards' hat to the sky freeze frame, still lame, but not so much.

Comments????

reply

I agree completely. Little Big League is a much better movie. No contest. For a baseball fan, Little Big League is a movie that you can rewatch countless times and not get sick of it because of two main reasons: 1) the baseball discussions are interesting and not dumbed down for people who don't know baseball; and 2) there aren't any annoying characters. I can't say either of those things about Rookie of the Year. Not to mention the entire script is so much better written. It's really not even close.

reply

Little Big League and Rookie of the Year had gotten strong rotation on HBO recently. The big factor for me is rewatchability. Where I will always sit down and watch Little Big League, Rookie of the Year is utterly unwatchable, even painful to watch. From the horrible acting, to the unbelievability of the actors as ball players (looking in your direction Gary Busey), to the silly plot.

There are many things to love about Little Big League. Once of my biggest pet peaves with sports movies are actors that can't pull off being an athlete. This movie was cast perfectly. I believed you could have plugged Timothy Busfield in at first base for any major league team (and to think that guy was Poindexter from Revenge of the Nerds). Even Jonathan Silverman, as Bowers (one of my favorite characters in the movie), was believable.

Just had to mention this, one of my favorite scenes was when the entire team was trying to figure out the math problem. There are so many great one-liners in that scene, from Lonnie Ritter, "What color paint?" Or Hilbert with a dumb and confused look, "I should know this. My uncle is a painter." Or Blackout with the question, "Why don't they just get a house that is already painted?" Then with the histerical conclusion where the eccentric yet quirky Bowers takes over and solves the math problem and the riddle and the great answer to the question "Are you sure?" "But of course my diminutive leader. Long have I been familiar with the exactitudes of the mathematical world."

Overall, just a great and fun film to watch.

reply

I agree. Rookie of the Year was very silly and often went for the ridiculous slapstick laugh. On the other hand, Little Big League had a degree of authenticity to it. There was also conflict where Billy had to be an adult to be the manager, but wanted deep inside to be a kid.
Finally, Little Big League also was not predictable--mostly on how the Twins ended their season (it is also why I liked Major League. Sure, the Indians won, but how they won was a way no one expected).
My only critique of Little Big League was that it was a little too long for a family movie. Other than that, though, it was far superior to Rookie of the Year.

reply

The Dodgers Played in Brooklyn?

Haha that line made the movie for me....still good anyway.

reply

[deleted]

little big league is way better, although i watch both movies about every month (i dont even like baseball!)

the kid in rookie of the year is really annoying with all his "heys" and "hiyas" in a pre-pubescent voice, and its weird thinking about him in american pie doing "things" with his girlfriend hahahahah

i also love billy heywoods friends "i love fishing. it relaxes me."

reply

There's NO question...Little Big League smokes ROTY in every way. It's funnier ("Night Nurses From Jersey", a Bill Heywood, I piss on Jed Clampett, what color paint [Lonnie's great answer to the math question]) and like the review above says, the baseball is FANTASTIC. It's really the best LOOKING baseball movie ever made...and when you consider that formal players Kevin Elster and Leon "Bull" Durham are in the cast, that makes total sense. Plus the baseball dialogue was great...the discussion between Mac and Billy about an 8th inning tie game was awesome.

I also liked that there wasn't a typical ending. Griffey making that catch. You didn't see that coming. Just had more elements of realism w/o sacrificing humor

reply

Ha Ha, I just watched Rookie of the Year again on TV, and when it was over I put Little Big League on, then got on imdb to look up obscure actors.

I do like both movies; both are fun, enjoyable, and about my favorite game: baseball. But, like all other commenters I agree that Little Big League is by far the better movie. The film is better written, more believeable, and the actors, including Edwards do an excellent job. Billy's two friends are much more fun than Henry's. Plus, the acting was more natural and less forced. As for the Sandlot and Angels in the Outfield? I love both movies, they are absolutely wonderful, but I actually watch Little Big League far more often than either of them. These movies were made for me (i was around 10 in the early 90s), but they have an endless appeal to anyone who just wants to watch a fun movie without the constant drama of adult relations. And baseball movies are my favorite.
I do have to say that I actually kinda liked Busey in Rookie of the Year, its one of the only movies he acts in that I like his acting and his character.

And my favorite line?
lonnie: Kids today are amazing. I played winter ball down in Venezuela and they had kids half his age, every one of them speaking spanish, and that's a hard language.
lou: They speak spanish in Venezuela.
lonnie: I know, thats my point.

reply

I'd say it depends on you're mood. For me it will and always be Little Big League. The movie is just better as you sit there and watch it, like someone else said, it's not dumbed down for non baseball fans. It keeps up the lingo and also like the O.P. said Luke Edward's is or torable, although Thomas Ian Nicholas is the better action, I just like Luke Edwards more. Not to mention Little Big League, is based in my home state, and I do get to see some great memories of the Metrodome, before the Twins move. Overall, Little Big League all the way, but both are great movies.

reply

[deleted]

little big league is better overall but you cant beat the quotes from daniel stern and john candy

reply