Why running movies so often suck

Yes, really good article on something that is mentioned on the boards a fair amount. I liked how the author pointed out PRs and running accomplishments of the writers or directors, and what conflicts they come up against while trying to convey running reality. Well done Alison Wade.

People on here might freakout a bit that decent content came out of 'Runners World.'

Not just for running movies, but for all "based on reality" movies I don't understand why they change stuff that doesn't need to be changed. Dont' get me wrong. I understand why they created Dicaprio's character in Titanic, but some basic stuff that annoyed me:

1. In the Bannister movie, the real story of his very first race (that he lost) was pretty cool against the guy who just left his cigarette on the track during the race and picked it up after winning. It was a 400m. Why did they have to change it to a mile in the movie? What was the value of doing that?

2. In American Gangster, if they were going to make up some crap about Frank Lucas' (Denzel's character) nephew trying out for the Yankees while Vietnam was still going on, don't also lie and say the Yankee manager at the time was Billy Martin (not hired till we were out of Vietnam). One of many unnecessary lies in this movie.

3. In 12 Years a Slave, why make up the part about the stabbing on the boat? I could see the dramatic evil added to the movie but didn't it have enough of that already? This part seemed far-fetched and what do you know, it was; it wasn't in the book but added by the film maker.

whatsmyname wrote: Not just for running movies, but for all "based on reality" movies I don't understand why they change stuff that doesn't need to be changed.

I tend to agree with what was said in the RW article about the directors, not the screenwriters, being to blame. Still doesn't answer your "why question, but I inferred that directors are willing to sacrifice the story for the sake of the film...if that makes sense.

Don't forget Billy Crudup not once even opening his mouth to take a single breath of air in Without Limits.

I know Pre had a high V02 number but surely he must have breathed through his mouth as well as nose.

Crudup just keeps glaring with his mouth anchored firmly shut.

I read the article and I still really don't get it. It just doesn't seem that hard to get a few things right. I don't buy that most people won't notice the obvious flaws. There are sports I don't understand but I still know an athlete when I see one. For me I just can't unsee the really bad flaws and continue to be interested in the story. It ruins it for me.

Not being able to replicate the finish of the Boston Marathon I can forgive. Casting a shot putter as 4 minute miler is a complete other story. I feel bad for the writers that have to see their stories butchered on film. Really bad running movies make running look like a joke.

I'm looking forward to and am anxious to see the Alexi Pappas film, "Track-Town," when it is completed. I bet they get the running right.

It states in 'Across The Tracks', they were running the wrong way around the track, with YouTube as "proof". WRONG. The YouTube was produced "backwards"- but the movie had them going the correct way.

Far as RW criticizing Pitt commentating during the fast race- it made total sense to have it, given the story at at point- even if that detail was not fully realistic in a race setting. It was easily better for the movie to have it.

I like what the author said about the director who added elements of cross country skiing with the runner collapsing after the race. That is pure rubbish. Didn't this board make fun of the skiers collapsing during the olympics?

Straw M Thoroughman wrote:

Don't forget Billy Crudup not once even opening his mouth to take a single breath of air in Without Limits.

I know Pre had a high V02 number but surely he must have breathed through his mouth as well as nose.

Crudup just keeps glaring with his mouth anchored firmly shut.

Bull.