Will Mine That Bird be making any appearances in the film? I still think if Calvin had rode him the in the Preakness he would have beaten Rachel Alexandra, not discounting Mike Smith's ability to win races, he is a phenominal jockey in his own right but I think Calvin had a better connection to "Bird".
shareAccording to horse racing sites Mine that bird played himself along with some extras.
Mine That Birds win was the first Derby I was in attendance for and Rachel's win in the Oaks was my first day at Churchill Downs. Furthermore, I thought it was awesome that the owners gave out roses from the blanket to fans who were at CD the following morning. Really excited to see this movie because I was there so to speak.
I will say I think your wrong about the Preakness. Rachel was a special horse that year and remember Calvin chose to ride Rachel over Mine That Bird, he knew who was the better horse. Furthermore, Mine That Bird never won another race after that Derby. I think he caught lightening in a bottle over the sloppy CD track with Calvin riding the paint to victory. He was a good horse and part of a great story.
Agreed. Mine That Bird wasn't going to beat Rachel and Calvin knew it and his connection was with Rachel, he had only ridden Mine That Bird for the Derby.
Jackson didn't make himself any friends at the Preakness. I hated that he put Rachel in the Preakness and made Borel choose like that; it was purely a case of "ooh look at my shiny new toy, let's mess with the Triple Crown". Rachel was a rabbit in that race and she was exhausted by the end of it, only the whip kept her ahead of Bird.
Despite being tiny, and a gelding, AND losing his jockey (what Derby winner can you remember losing his rider for the Preakness in recent memory?) he still came 2nd and then they ran him in the Belmont and he came third. He finished in the money in all three Triple Crown races...nothing to shake a stick at.
I think he lost heart after the TC.
Its really difficult for any horse to win a TC. The three races are relatively close together time-wise, most horses tend to be rested a lot longer between races.
It also appeared, at least for MTB, that it took a special way of riding him to get the best performance out of him. Its probably that way for many horses, each has their own 'quirks' that make finding the right jockey for them a key factor.
I watched the movie primarily because I'm a CK fan, and found it very enjoyable for the evening. But yes, its hard for 'smaller' films to find a large audience when it lacks big-named stars (or director/producer), a popular book/comic source, a well-known series tie-in, or its not the big D.
I had no idea they were turning this story into a movie. Super excited to see William Devane playing our family friend, Dr. Leonard Blach. What an actor! And what a character he is playing! I hope the script is good, but we'll probably be in the theatres opening night whether or no.
shareThat was almost funny. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell any of those colts could have beat Rachel....especially Mine That Bird of all horses.
Mine That Bird was retired one year after his (lucky) Derby win because he lost nine consecutive races after that. He's only won 5 out of 18 starts in his whole career and only earned 2.2 million....and that's including the Kentucky Derby win...2nd in the preakness and 3rd in the Belmont that year. He's a gelding so he's worthless as a stud. The only thing special about that horse was the Derby upset. I don't know why they even bothered to make a movie about him.
That's why this is an indie film that had no real distributers....no real promotion....and that's only hitting a tiny handful of theaters in limited release only. Because nobody wants to see this movie and it's not even going to make it's shooting budget back. The production company knows that....which is why they wouldn't spend any more money on it to promoote it or distribute it to more theaters. It should have never been made. They should have made a real movie about either Rachel or Zenyatta. Those are real special horses with amazing dramatic careers. Not this gelding that made one single headline.
Why such a Debbie Downer? If you don't like the horse then don't read about him or the movie about him and especially don't leave your negative comments on blogs about him. Thank you.
share[deleted]
I must admit I am a MTB fan. However, this story is more than just his story. Its also a story of a group of outsiders who took on the wealthy blueblood clique and beat them at their own game with a horse "who didn't belong there." All us outsiders dream of doing that. Who cares if MTB didn't win another race. He won the one that mattered the most.
share<<I also stated and i have a RIGHT TO.....that this movie shouldn't have been made. And also stated why. Because it's a story about the wrong horse. There's no reason for a movie about Mine That Bird. There isn't anything special about this horse other than one race and the fact the trainer drove him from Mexico to Kentucky with a broken leg..>>
You have a right to your opinion, and I'll defend that right for you or anyone else. However, as far as I know, you have not been declared the Supreme Commander of the Universe so you don't have a right to say this movie shouldn't have been made. You do have the right to say you wouldn't have made it, you wouldn't have put money into, you won't go to see it, you don't support it and anything else you want.
Other people, who had the money and desire, decided this movie should be made and so it's been made, it's being promoted and what happens will.
If you don't like that, fine.
Honestly, Rhonda, I believe your need to control what's right and wrong for other people is really sad. And to be honest, I don't care if you like that or not. There was a time you expressed a differing opinion in a civilized fashion. That time seems to be long gone. -Cathy
I'll say again because you seem to think I don't have any right to..
THIS MOVIE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE.
It shouldn't have been made because:
1. It was the story of a horse that didn't do anything great enough to merit the public wanting to see any movie made about him.
2. It wont make back it's own shooting budget let alone make any sort of profit.
3. It's cost a lot of actors time they could have spent doing more important and potentially more successful projects.
4. It's cost more money than it's going to make.
5. The public AS A WHOLE does NOT want to see this movie. Not the handful of people who are die hard fans of any given actor in it or the horse it's about going to see it right now. The general public as in mainstream audiences do not want to see this movie. Because the general public is not GOING to see it. And the proof in that statement is because it's bombed already.
So that's why I say this movie should not have been made.
It was a waste of money... time ...and talent.
Hi Rhonda,
All of your "reasons" for why you hold the opinion that this movie should not have been made are simply that: your reasons for your opinion.
<<I'll say again because you seem to think I don't have any right to..
THIS MOVIE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE.>>
To the contrary, in response to your opinion that this movie shouldn't have been made, I said:
<<You have a right to your opinion, and I'll defend that right for you or anyone else.>>
I also said:
<<However, as far as I know, you have not been declared the Supreme Commander of the Universe so you don't have a right to say this movie shouldn't have been made. You do have the right to say you wouldn't have made it, you wouldn't have put money into, you won't go to see it, you don't support it and anything else you want.>>
Perhaps that requires clarification because I did use the same words. I believe the surrounding text clarified my view/opinion. Apparently, it did not.
CLARIFICATION:
You have the right to your opinion that this movie should not have been made.
You do not have the right to say this movie or any other movie should not have been made by someone else.
I said:
<<Other people, who had the money and desire, decided this movie should be made and so it's been made, it's being promoted and what happens will. If you don't like that, fine.>>
It's really very simple: You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to tell me or anyone else what our opinions should be.
It's my personal opinion that you do not have the right to decide what should or shouldn't be made based on what you think someone else should have done instead. As far as I know, the people involved in this project are not under contract to you. As a result, they are entitled, successful or not, to do what they want, and they did. If they are under contract to you, that would be a different matter.
FYI, most people love stories about the "Underdog" winning. -cjb
Hi Rhonda,
All of your "reasons" for why you hold the opinion that this movie should not have been made are simply that: your reasons for your opinion.
DUH!!!!! Of freakin course they are. They are also shared by everyone who chooses NOT to go see this film and there are a LOT of people that have no desire whatsoever to go see this film.....which is exactly WHY it's not making any money. People are going to see Captain America. They are going to see Transcendence....Rio 2 and everything else that's making actual MONEY. Common sence Cathy.
<<I'll say again because you seem to think I don't have any right to..
THIS MOVIE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE.>>
To the contrary, in response to your opinion that this movie shouldn't have been made, I said:
<<You have a right to your opinion, and I'll defend that right for you or anyone else.>>
I also said:
<<However, as far as I know, you have not been declared the Supreme Commander of the Universe so you don't have a right to say this movie shouldn't have been made. You do have the right to say you wouldn't have made it, you wouldn't have put money into, you won't go to see it, you don't support it and anything else you want.>>
So this is a english language problem for you Cathy? lol I don't have to be Supreme Commander of the Universe to say that I ....(member name "Afishcalledrhonda) am saying that this movie shouldn't have been made. Apparently you can't freakin handle that Cathy.
Perhaps that requires clarification because I did use the same words. I believe the surrounding text clarified my view/opinion. Apparently, it did not.
CLARIFICATION:
You have the right to your opinion that this movie should not have been made.
You do not have the right to say this movie or any other movie should not have been made by someone else.
Freeze right there... Thank you. You proved my point and that being the hypocrisy in yours. Oh yes I have EVERRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYY RIGHT to say yes say. I text again. SAY to anyone I want that this movie or any other movie I feel like, shouldn't have been made. I absolutely positively do have a right under the Constitution of this whole d&^% country to say that this movie shouldn't have been made.... And I gave all the reasons that back up why I say it....and there isn't anything you or anyone else can do about it other than disagree or ignore the point altogether.. This movie shouldn't have been made. This movie shouldn't have been made. This movie......shouldn't have been made.
I said:
<<Other people, who had the money and desire, decided this movie should be made and so it's been made, it's being promoted and what happens will. If you don't like that, fine.>>
And I told you that because of that or despite it more so....it will bomb. And it IS bombing. As we speak it's failing sadly. Because it's only in a tiny handful of theaters. It's not even in enough theaters to even be called a milited release by many box office websites.
It's really very simple: You have a right to your opinion. You do not have a right to tell me or anyone else what our opinions should be.
I've stated mine. You are the one that is arguing. Probably because everything I said was going to happen (the movie is bombing) has and it's ticking you off that I'm in a possition to say I told you so.
It's my personal opinion that you do not have the right to decide what should or shouldn't be made based on what you think someone else should have done instead. As far as I know, the people involved in this project are not under contract to you. As a result, they are entitled, successful or not, to do what they want, and they did. If they are under contract to you, that would be a different matter.
You sound absolutely ridiculous. It's funny to read all the ways you just can't stand what i'm saying and wish so badly you could stop me from saying it. Of course the people involved in this project are not contracted to me. And it hasn't got a thing to do with my point. If a movie loses money for it's studio...the production company...all the people involved in it's production....then YES that is a movie that should have been made. You know another movie that shouldn't have been made? Gigli shouldn't have been made. It lost it's ass. The Tooth Fairy shouldn't have been made either. Those involved later realised that too. Do you think people enjoy throwing millions of dollars away? Well they don't. Especially in Hollywood. You think actors enjoy having their reputations lowered by being in tanks? No they don't. I don't have to have a contract with anybody regarding this movie or any other movie to say whatever the hell I want about it. How would it be if you say something like....."I hate strawberry ice cream".... and I came up at you and said.... Hey hold on... You don't have any right to say that. You can say how much you like vanilla or chocolate but you can't just say you don't like the other one. How much strawberry ice cream have you sold or made in your life thatgives you the right to say something I don't like about it? That's basically the same thing you're doing right here. You're saying that because you don't like my words.... that I don't have any right to say them. Well. that isn't so. You're also trying to dictate what I say by choosing my words for me in the earlier comments. You said I do have a right to my opinion but I don't have a right to say .......blah blah blah. Well I do. I have a right to say whatever positive or negative remark I feel like about this movie.
FYI, most people love stories about the "Underdog" winning. -cjb
FYI Then "most" people would be going to see this movie then wouldn't they? But they're not Cathy.
Rhonda,
I said: It's my personal opinion that you do not have the right to decide what should or shouldn't be made based on what you think someone else should have done instead. As far as I know, the people involved in this project are not under contract to you. As a result, they are entitled, successful or not, to do what they want, and they did. If they are under contract to you, that would be a different matter.
For the record, I stand by that statement.
YOU: You sound absolutely ridiculous. It's funny to read all the ways you just can't stand what i'm saying and wish so badly you could stop me from saying it. Of course the people involved in this project are not contracted to me. And it hasn't got a thing to do with my point. If a movie loses money for it's studio...the production company...all the people involved in it's production....then YES that is a movie that should have been made.
Frankly, Rhonda, I don't care if you think I sound ridiculous. I also don't care what you say, feel or do about this movie or any other one. Where you get the idea I would want to stop you from saying anything is beyond me. You open your mouth, and I get to laugh at the mistakes you make. There's one in the section "YOU:" quoted above.
Judging only from what you've posted on IMDb versus the 30-plus years I've worked in law and the entertainment industry, you appear to know very little about how Hollywood works.
I didn't think Skeet Ulrich was much of an actor in this or anything else but there are a million movies out there "based on a true story". I enjoyed this anyways. To target this one over any other (much better made than most) based on the fact that someone decided the story was worth making a movie out of, and you don't agree, just makes you a t.w.a.t. Miss AFishCalledWanda. Try at least to be slightly more original - maybe then, someone might listen to you.
shareI agree about the Preakness. Mine That Bird made an amazing run from waaay back, if he had been on the rail he might have been able to catch Rachel Alexandra.
shareI agree about the Preakness. Mine That Bird made an amazing run from waaay back, if he had been on the rail he might have been able to catch Rachel Alexandra.
That isn't even theoretically possible. Rachel was a grand champion.....with a near perfect race record. MTB couldn't even beat horses that were 30% her quality and speed. There's no way he could have beat her. Even with Calvin Borel aboard in the Preakness he came in third. So Calvin wasn't even what was the winning factor for him in the Derby.....it was the fact he was so small he managed to be just the right size to squeeze in between Join In The Dance and the rail which Calvin always pushes his mounts to do. Had he been bigger he wouldn't have won the derby that day. He came in dead last in the Breeder's Cup Juvinille and other handicap races he couldn't win at all.
It was sheer luck he managed to pull off the headline making win in the first place.
But in the end with all your talk about how he was an average horse and shouldn't have had a movie made about him. History will show he DID win the 2009 Kentucky Derby, he did come in 2nd behind a phenomenal mare in Rachael Alexandra in the 2009 Preakness Stakes and he did come in 3rd in the 2009 Belmont Stakes. How many horses have that kind of record in the Triple Crown? I know all about how he didn't win another race but no one can ever take the 2009 Triple Crown bid away from that gritty little gelding. That's why I want to see the movie because he was totally the underdog and he came out a winner. I want to go see a feel good movie forget reality for a few hours and relive the spring of 2009.
shareBut in the end with all your talk about how he was an average horse and shouldn't have had a movie made about him. History will show he DID win the 2009 Kentucky Derby, he did come in 2nd behind a phenomenal mare in Rachael Alexandra in the 2009 Preakness Stakes and he did come in 3rd in the 2009 Belmont Stakes.
Yeah, He LOST the second and third races in the Triple crown. That IS my point. Coming in behind a phenomenal filly doesn't make him movie making material. If anything it makes the FILLY movie making material. Coming in second and third in the triple crown races then followed by a full on career of losing all his races then basically retired to the horse museum as an exibit alongside "Funny Cide" (which by the way was another losing gelding that became a lead pony of all things humiliating to a once winning race horse). That IS my point.
How many horses have that kind of record in the Triple Crown?
What? Won the Derby then lost everything afterwards? Most of them. What's more impressive is a horse that's won two out of the three Triple Crown races. And how many are there that have managed that greater feet? Over 50 of them.....including Funny Cide who's now a cranky lead pony. Of the triple Crown races.... those who've won two out of three have a more impressive race record. Coming in second and third doesn't count. My point exactly. There are a ton more interesting... successful....and even more popular Cinderella stories in racing than Mine That Bird. You want yet another example? Sham. Came in second to Secretariat in both the Derby and the Preakness and came in last in the Belmont only because to keep fighting for second place was useless so the jockey pulled him up to keep his heart from exploding when he realized he couldn't take the win. They didn't make a movie about Sham did they? And he would have been more qualified to have one about him.
I know all about how he didn't win another race but no one can ever take the 2009 Triple Crown bid away from that gritty little gelding. That's why I want to see the movie because he was totally the underdog and he came out a winner. I want to go see a feel good movie forget reality for a few hours and relive the spring of 2009.
Every single one of the horses in history have the same triple crown bid. That's why there's nothing special about MTB. You go relive the spring of 2009. You'll be one of like 12 people going to see this movie. It's an indie film because no company with any real money wanted to invest in this because it was a bad idea all the way around.. It's a bomb. Even the distributers bailed on it and decided to cut their losses. I don't know why it didn't just go straight to dvd. I probably will anyway. My point is....it shouldn't have been made. They totally missed the mark on this one. And everyone involved is clearly paying for it.
A fish called Rhonda is a troll. A "Skeet-hater" whose only thing to do is complain and whine, and talk negative about anything Skeet-related. Just ignore her (or him? LOL)
shareHi A,
<<A fish called Rhonda is a troll. A "Skeet-hater" whose only thing to do is complain and whine, and talk negative about anything Skeet-related. Just ignore her (or him? LOL)>>
I agree. I just posted Rhonda above. It's sad to see the change in her attitude from when I first read her posts to now.
Hope all is well with you. Tomorrow, while I freeze here in Philly, I'm going shopping.
-Cathy