MovieChat Forums > Seabiscuit (2003) Discussion > I wish that 'Seabiscuit' didn't have Sea...

I wish that 'Seabiscuit' didn't have Seabiscuit in it

posted 15 years ago by Milkyway123
32 replies | jump to latest

Seriously. I wish that they had taken away that damn horse from the story, it took the movie in the wrong direction. Yes, I am aware that they then would have to retool the entire movie and even change the title, fine by me.
I just saw this movie. It was an ok film, but it was too mushy, too sentimental, too "hey, look at this inspiring story and its characters" feeling. It felt like a Ron Howard movie and I despise Ron Howard movies. What is a Ron Howard movie you may ask? RH movies are always very manipulative, too mushy, too schmaltzy, too aware of itself and screams "look at me, I'm unique and important= give me an Oscar". It was too much, it was too corny. The film made all the characters actually look pathetic. Seriously. Almost every second of the 140 min runtime, we got to see the main 4 characters spend every second with that God damn horse! Get a life or marry the horse won't you, was my thought . It was a very single minded plot/story. I wanted to delve in to Bridges' character, how he coped with the death of his son, wife leaving him, his company struggling etc and Red's feelings about his family leaving him etc, all without that damn horse in every second of the story. And I would've liked to see the young Red throughout the movie, I don't know what it was, a combination of the young kid actor who impressed me and his young age during that crisis time, how he reacted to it was very interesting and I would've liked for that to develop. Am I alone in feeling this?

Tobey Maguire (who I usually like) was annoying, I wasn't rooting at all for his character. When I think about it, every character/actor in this movie was annoying and walking clichés (and I'm a fan of all 3 actors!). I don't blame the actors, the characters and the story were all overtly sentimental and predictable. The funny thing is that the movie started out great! I loved how the story started and seemed to be going: Bridges starting as a average worker, rising to success, losing his son, losing his wife etc. Then in parallel we see Red Pollard's low-income family, reciting famous authors during dinner etc. Then the economy turndown comes and and the great depression arrives, Red is left by his family and Howard loses everything dear to him. We got to see the times and how it affected the people and their spirit and society briefly. It was building up to a intriguing atmosphere. I loved every second of it and was looking forward to the 2+ hours of story. The second that was over however, beginning with adult Red, the movie went down the drain. Hit us over the head with its cheesy message. WE GET IT! The horse "fixed us" and it was a beacon of hope in a time where there was no hope, it was an allegory for second chances we all would like to get and take etc.

I find it interesting that this movie seemed to have been so well-received during its release, no one seem to have observed how manipulative and formulaic it was. Do obvious formulaic movies deserve to be nominated for Oscars? A user here said: "I liked that it didn't follow most of the typical hollywood conventions", WHAT?! That is exactly what it did! Another claimed that this movie is probably better received or understood by horse and horse racing lovers. Again, what?! So now you have to be interested in the actual subject, in this case a sport, to like a movie?! Are you kidding me. I'm not interested in half of the "sports movies" or even the subjects of some movies, but still I enjoy them immensely. So I find a lot of poor excuses for those who didn't like the film, rather than acknowledge that a person has found legitimate faults (in their POV) with the film and that person has all the right to it. Rather than belittle their opinion and say: "you didn't get it" or "go back to watching 'Date Movie'" etc.

I would like to add that Gary Ross previous project: Pleasantville however is brilliant! Maguire and the entire movie is flawless there. One of my favorite movies.

[–] JR541 15 years ago

You can't have this movie without the horse. It was Seabiscuit that brought them all together and healed all of their wounds.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

Apparently, you did not read Laura Hillenbrand's book on which this film is based and so your opinion is an uneducated one.

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

JR541:
"You can't have this movie without the horse. It was Seabiscuit that brought them all together and healed all of their wounds."
Yes, you can. But a different one. And that was the point I was making.

fleurfairy:
No, I didn't read the book and I don't wish to. I watched the film I was judging, is that somehow illogical?
The movie should and is supposed to stand on its own legs.

My opinion is uneducated cause I didn't read the book? Give me a break! What a poor excuse: "if you are gonna watch this film, you better read the book too or else you can *beep* off". Maybe if I was judging the book I hadn't read, you'd be right, you knucklehead! But now I was judging the film I saw. Don't be so *beep* rude! I didn't make my original post to spite anyone, so why are you answering in such an impolite manner fleurfairy?
The Internet makes for uncivilized people apparently and unfortunately.

[–] JR541 15 years ago

Then lets have The Godfather without all the Mafia in it. Lets have the Wizard of Oz do without the imagined characters like The Scarecrow, Tinman, Lion, and such and just have Dorothy and the farmhands walk down a dirt road to talk to professor Marvel as he was.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

Apparently, you did not read Laura Hillenbrand's book on which this film is based

The movie doesn't stand on its own because it is based on a book about a HORSE that connected three broken men together. Without the horse, they would have never known each other and thus there would be no story.

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

JR541:
"Then lets have The Godfather without all the Mafia in it."
Yeah, cause that is what I said
JR541, I don't agree with you about your examples. However with Seabiscuit, I still stand.

fleurfairy:
"The movie doesn't stand on its own because it is based on a book..."
Yes fleur, but think about this for a moment here. By you telling me "your opinion doesn't matter cause you haven't read the book" (paraphrased), I responded by telling you that I am judging the film on its own. As I should be doing. I am discussing the film I saw, even if it was based on a book. But I have no comments about the book, cause I hadn't read it. Why is that so hard to comprehend? Isn't that fair? I don't judge the book I haven't read, but I do judge the film I saw (yes, it was based on a book, but that is besides the point). Get it?

Yes, but my opinion does stand on its own, based on the film that stands on its own. You can't use the book it was based on for some kind of crutch. If you do, then you are telling your viewing audience (note: not reading audience), that they have to read the book also. This is a film! Film is a different medium. It is suppose to stand on its own and it does! You can't demand your audience to read the book as well. That diminishes the point of making it to a film.

What part of: "Yes, I am aware that they then would have to retool the entire movie and even change the title, fine by me", didn't you all get? I merely pointed out that I thought that they had a great source for a different film and I wish that they had gone in that direction. An opinion I am making. Forget about the book/film. You are just missing the point by narrowing your field with "book= film= the only way".

[–] JR541 15 years ago

No, I didn't like all the Mafia stuff in the Godfather. Why couldn't they just make it about a regular family?

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

I will repeat: Without the horse, they would have never known each other and thus there would be no story.

[–] JR541 15 years ago

I guess the point he is making is that he would have preferred it be about fictional people with a different plot device to bring them together.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

JR541, LOL!
"No, I didn't like all the Mafia stuff in the Godfather. Why couldn't they just make it about a regular family?"
So? Why should I care? Why are you telling this to me, on this thread? Go to the Godfather board and post this. I have no problem with it. And btw, if you want to see movies about "regular families", there are tons of those type of movies. I'm sure you can find many recommendations.

fleurfairy:
"I will repeat: Without the horse, they would have never known each other and thus there would be no story."
WOW! You really really have a lack of imagination, don't you?
And I will repeat: KEEP YOUR DAMN HORSE!

JR541:
"I guess the point he is making is that he would have preferred it be about fictional people with a different plot device to bring them together."
Thank you JR! Now, was that really so hard to put together? I think my post was rather straightforward with that intent. But apparently for some people they couldn't grasp their head around that
BUT, I have to correct with you on something, who said anything about bringing anyone together? Why can't you let Seabiscuit go?

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

Yeah, I get it but if not for horses, what did any of them have in common? One was a millionaire, one was a jockey, and one was an old cowboy. So what are you suggestions for Seabiscuit substitutions? And why try to re-write history? This is a true story about real people. It just doesn't make sense to me. No offense.

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

Hehe. First of all, who said that they have to have anything in common? There isn't just one way to tell a story, you know?
Secondly, what they did have in common was that they were living their lives during a very interesting time period in modern history. I thought it would've been really interesting to see how each family reacted to the same situation but not necessarily the same hardships and with different tools at their disposal. One trying to maintain his empire/business, while dealing with the loss of his son and the crumbling of his marriage. And the other simply maintaining his family and eventually deciding to leave his son behind. The Depression serves as a very interesting background, to create a bleak atmosphere of despair, while these characters are searching for hope, light at the end of the tunnel in the middle of all this. Which is something we all do. It works as a good and reasonable story device/catalyst to plunge these characters right in to the center of events.

"One was a millionaire, one was a jockey, and one was an old cowboy."
Well, first of all, let me start by saying: I am no screenwriter, I didn't say I had anything specific in mind, I just said that I liked where and how they started with the story and would've loved a expansion on that. But if I would try my hands on giving a suggestion, uh...
I would've expanded Edward's story of rise to success. I loved how he started, he was just a "plain worker", who decided to aim higher. The awkward scene of trying to sell his services outside his store was great! Develop his story to the successful man he became. The Depression comes, he suffers setbacks. He loses his son. He is a mess (I thought it was such a waste to not explore the loss of his son, than a few measly mentions). Expand the role of Edward's wife, but she eventually leaves and he is totally alone by the 1/3 of the story.
Then I would've kept the younger Red (Michael Angarano was excellent!) through the entire film, that means don't leap years forward to him as a grown man (that means no Tobey Maguire). Explore his story of being left by his family and his hope of them coming back for him, at the time they left him. No Seabiscuit! no horses altogether!
And no Chris Cooper or his character in this film either (though I love Copper as an actor). Just the story about Red and Howard, from their POV. Either have their each story told individually (not all characters in a story has to be cross paths), meaning they will never meet in the story (but indirectly they may influence each other). Or don't, and let them cross paths and find a savior in each other. Here we have a wealthy man who lost his son and a poor boy who got deserted by his family because of financial difficulties (even perhaps Edward being the reason for their financial difficulties as he had to lay of workers at his company).
And with this story, to be aware of the cheesiness that can arise, so you can counter-act the cheese.

Again, I'm not a screenwriter. I just wrote this down right now as an example, since you asked of something more specific.

"And why try to re-write history? This is a true story about real people. It just doesn't make sense to me. No offense.""
LOL! No offense taken. It's not about re-writing history. I just had an opinion of the movie. I saw a direction I liked, but they didn't take, and another direction they took, that I didn't like. So here I am stating my opinion. Here I am stating my wish for what I would've liked the film to explore. A complete fictitious story, lets call it "The Depression" (hehe), if that makes it easier for you. Try re-reading the original post, maybe with this new information, this may make more sense?

[–] jordanlisac 7 years ago

"I would've expanded Edward's story of rise to success. I loved how he started, he was just a "plain worker", who decided to aim higher. The awkward scene of trying to sell his services outside his store was great! Develop his story to the successful man he became. The Depression comes, he suffers setbacks. He loses his son. He is a mess (I thought it was such a waste to not explore the loss of his son, than a few measly mentions). Expand the role of Edward's wife, but she eventually leaves and he is totally alone by the 1/3 of the story."

Who the heck is Edward? For someone that is so in love with this character, please know his name is Charles Howard. I guess in your fantasy remake his name is Edward. Cullen, perhaps? You seem like someone who'd be into that. You felt like such a tough guy calling people names when your initial post was truly asinine. We understand your point but it's preposterous. I don't even care that this post was written 7 years ago, you needed to know.

The "feel good" story that was so corny for you was 100% real for millions of Americans that felt beaten down by an economy that left them feeling desperate. They were desperate for a "feel good" story and I would say I'm sorry you were left feeling like it was stupid but I'm not sorry. You want to watch a sad movie? Watch Schindler's List. You seem mostly alone in feeling that the movie 'Seabiscuit' would be better without Seabiscuit. And when someone dared to discuss it (that you were alone), you go into attack mode.

In your movie you just want to follow the lives of two men that won't ever meet. Where's the conflict? The rise? The return of a hero? Would there even be a hero? The resolution? There won't even be a sport anymore in your "fake biopic". "I'm not a screenwriter buuuut CHANGE THIS WHOLE TRUE STORY TO SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE!11!!!" Why not just shut off the movie at the 45 minute mark? There, you're set.

[–] JR541 15 years ago

"BUT, I have to correct with you on something, who said anything about bringing anyone together? Why can't you let Seabiscuit go?"

So really your post has nothing at all to do with this movie. You don't like that Seabuiscuit is in the film. You don't like that these people were brought together. Why not just say that you hated the whole structure of the film?

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] fleurfairy 15 years ago

Right. I agree with JR. This is a completely pointless post.

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

JR541:
"So really your post has nothing at all to do with this movie."
Re-read the post.

"You don't like that these people were brought together."
More like, I don't like HOW they were brought together.

"You don't like that Seabuiscuit is in the film. Why not just say that you hated the whole structure of the film?"
That is what I have been saying all along! How can you not have gotten that?

fleurfairy:
"Right. I agree with JR. This is a completely pointless post"
Yes, fleur, of course you agree with JR, you are as lost as he is. Yes, I agree with you, as usual, your posts are pointless.
Now, the part about not taking offense expressed earlier by you, with your petty remark at the end here, I did!

[–] JR541 15 years ago

I got it all from the first time I read your post. I've just been busting your balls.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] phil11b 15 years ago

I know how milkyway feels. When I was a child my mom used to read me bedtime stories. I always thought Goldilocks and the three bears would have been better if Goldilocks had not gone into the woods. Instead she wins tickets for a cruise. Then while on the cruise, due to a case of mistaken identity, she is given microfilm containing government secrets. The story then grows into a globe trotting espionage adventure. Thant would have been better

[–] Milkyway123 15 years ago

JR541, Ok :D Sneaky you. But what is the other one's (shall go unnamed) excuse? Hehe.

phil, yeah yeah. Whatever.

[–] phil11b 15 years ago

um, do you think i am jr541? i'm not, i have been a member of imdb for a few years.

[–] pmarsh025 11 years ago

This arguement doesn't make any sense. It was the horse that brought all 3 men together. Seabiscuit was the driving force in getting Red, Smith, and Howard together. Without the horse, the story would make no sense.

They should totally make Harry Potter without Harry Potter though, that sounds great. Or Lord of the Flies without them getting stuck on the island.

This is literally one of the dumbest arguments on this site.

[–] Milkyway123 11 years ago

Another idiot with a lack of imagination. You may not agree with the idea but not understanding my post shows that you are the dumb *beep*.

Me: I like the characters, settings and background and that is what I wish would have been the focus of the film.
idiot: no horsey?! no horsey does not make film.

[–] BlueCatsFan 11 years ago

In your very first post you ask "Am I alone in feeling this?" and the answer is "Yes". No need to call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Don't expect anyone to respect your retarded opinion when you don't show that same grace.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dddmi7-1 11 years ago

you don't have a point OP, all you have is a keyboard...and it would take hours for an educated person to point out your flawed hypothesis (uh oh, more than 2 syllables)...

Let's have Lassie without that meddlesome dog...

Let's have flipper without the dolphin...

Let's make JFK without that Kennedy guy!

ok, and your point is?

[–] Paynebyname 11 years ago

So what you are ultimately saying is that you wished you'd seen another film?

www.paynebyname.com

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Quentin36 10 years ago

No one will read a post that is that long.FYI

To say nothing of the ridiculous openig paragraph

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Quentin36 9 years ago

No one cares or reads your long posts

[–] ewd76-944-910685 9 years ago

I would like to add that Gary Ross previous project: Pleasantville however is brilliant! Maguire and the entire movie is flawless there. One of my favorite movies.

Pleasantville is liberal propaganda.

[–] mrpacker 8 years ago

"Seriously. Almost every second of the 140 min runtime, we got to see the main 4 characters spend every second with that God damn horse!" Seabiscuit didn't even appear in the movie until after 45 minutes in!