Joe Montana shits on Rudy

[Hammock Parties]

I love this.



http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...n=ncaaf-268408

Biopic fans will be shocked – shocked! – to learn that Hollywood takes liberties with the real-life narratives and characters that often come to stand in for history in the popular imagination. In the case of the enduring 1993 hit "Rudy," the film was so unrecognizably warped beyond the existence of an undersized Notre Dame player who registered an improbable sack against Georgia Tech in 1975 that former Irish coach Dan Devine called certain scenes – notably the climactic moment when Rudy's teammates confront Devine's villainous character by handing in their jerseys to get Rudy on the dress list, and later his reluctance to actually put Rudy in the game – "unforgivable" and "a lie."

Hall of Famer Joe Montana, then a lowly freshman lingering somewhere on the depth chart, doesn't remember it quite as harshly. But as he told radio host Dan Patrick on Wednesday, he certainly doesn't remember any uplifting strings swelling in the rafters, either:

DP: Were you there when Rudy was there?

JM: Yeah. It's a movie, remember. Not all of that is true.

DP: What wasn't true?

JM: Well, the crowd wasn't chanting. No one threw in their jerseys. He did get in the game. He got carried off [at the end of] the game. [...] Back then they tried to play someone at the end of [the season] that all the seniors could get in the last home game.

The schedule was kind of set that way. So he got in. He did get a sack. And then the guys carried him off, just playing around. I won't say it was a joke, but it was playing around. He worked his butt off to get where he was and to do the things he did. But not any harder than anyone else.

And so reality continues its long unbeaten streak against trumped-up sentiment – not that Rudy Ruettiger minds, now that he's parlayed his 15 minutes into a steady career as motivational speaker and "corporate trainer." I suppose anyone who's able to inspire and sell a bogus feel-good movie about himself being a run-of-the-mill scrub is destined for success.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by Brock

I wouldn't have been party to a bunch of lies and defaming a good guy in the process. Would you?

From a Hollywood angle I totally get your point. I guess not knowing Rudy Poos compensation for the movie is leaving me a funny space but if they offered some poor schmuck a bunch of $$$$$$ to do a movie on this even if they were going to skew it I guess can understand why someone would do that.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by milkman

The poor spelling doesn't bother me.

It is what it is.

I just can't buy into the excuse.

Just tell it like it is.

You can't spell, and at the end of the day, you don't really care.

I can respect that.

Your absolutely right milkman. At the end of the day I don't care. However, so far when somebody brings up that I suck at spelling, gives me opportunity to increase my post count. So in a way I do care.

[Frazod]

Any "true life" movie made by Hollywood will be full of historical inaccuracies. Sometimes they're almost completely fabricated (Memphis Belle, Pearl Harbor), sometimes they add characters to the story that never existed (like Michael Douglas's character in Ghost in the Darkness), or omit historical characters (there were three Chamberlain brothers in the 20th Maine, not two as depicted in Gettysburg). I could go on and on, but the point is Hollywood is looking for drama, and the truth is obviously not a top consideration.

If you want the truth, read a book.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by frazod

Any "true life" movie made by Hollywood will be full of historical inaccuracies. Sometimes they're almost completely fabricated (Memphis Belle, Pearl Harbor), sometimes they add characters to the story that never existed (like Michael Douglas's character in Ghost in the Darkness), or omit historical characters (there were three Chamberlain brothers in the 20th Maine, not two as depicted in Gettysburg). I could go on and on, but the point is Hollywood is looking for drama, and the truth is obviously not a top consideration.

If you want the truth, read a book.

Pretty much. I have more issues with historical inaccuracies if they pertain to important events in our nations history as opposed to a midget football players one tackle for example.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by frazod

Any "true life" movie made by Hollywood will be full of historical inaccuracies. Sometimes they're almost completely fabricated (Memphis Belle, Pearl Harbor), sometimes they add characters to the story that never existed (like Michael Douglas's character in Ghost in the Darkness), or omit historical characters (there were three Chamberlain brothers in the 20th Maine, not two as depicted in Gettysburg). I could go on and on, but the point is Hollywood is looking for drama, and the truth is obviously not a top consideration.

If you want the truth, read a book.

Yo mean like the history books that depicted Custer as some kind of heroic martyr?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by milkman

Yo mean like the history books that depicted Custer as some kind of heroic martyr?

Sometimes you need to read more than one.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by frazod

Sometimes you need to read more than one.

My point is that you have to take everything with a grain of salt, regardless of the source.

You can glean most of the truth from numerous sources, but it's still all historical perspective.

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by frazod

Any "true life" movie made by Hollywood will be full of historical inaccuracies. Sometimes they're almost completely fabricated (Memphis Belle, Pearl Harbor), sometimes they add characters to the story that never existed (like Michael Douglas's character in Ghost in the Darkness), or omit historical characters (there were three Chamberlain brothers in the 20th Maine, not two as depicted in Gettysburg). I could go on and on, but the point is Hollywood is looking for drama, and the truth is obviously not a top consideration.

If you want the truth, read a book.

I read Captain Dick Winters' book (person that Band of Brothers basically revolves around) and there is an interesting story about how he called Tom Hanks and told him off because of all the cussing done in the series. Winters doesn't swear by personal choice but he also said they just didn't talk like that during the war, HBO just inserted the language for effect. Winters wasn't happy and let Hanks have it.

[siberian khatru]

Originally Posted by Swanman

I read Captain Dick Winters' book (person that Band of Brothers basically revolves around) and there is an interesting story about how he called Tom Hanks and told him off because of all the cussing done in the series. Winters doesn't swear by personal choice but he also said they just didn't talk like that during the war, HBO just inserted the language for effect. Winters wasn't happy and let Hanks have it.

"Listen here you goshdarn knuckleheaded Hollywood big shot! I'm pretty steamed that you took liberties with how my guys talked in the war. That was a flippin' crime! I'll have you know that nobody uttered the words shit, piss, ****, ****, one who sucks the penis, mother****er or tits. It was our kids who did that stuff! Now kindly go take a long walk off a short pier, you maroon!"

[Jenson71]

Originally Posted by milkman

My point is that you have to take everything with a grain of salt, regardless of the source.

You can glean most of the truth from numerous sources, but it's still all historical perspective.

We'll take this post with a grain of salt.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

From a Hollywood angle I totally get your point. I guess not knowing Rudy Poos compensation for the movie is leaving me a funny space but if they offered some poor schmuck a bunch of $$$$$$ to do a movie on this even if they were going to skew it I guess can understand why someone would do that.

I understand why too. He was willing to sell his integrity.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Jenson71

We'll take this post with a grain of salt.

A grain?

You better make it pound, as with all my posts.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Swanman

I read Captain Dick Winters' book (person that Band of Brothers basically revolves around) and there is an interesting story about how he called Tom Hanks and told him off because of all the cussing done in the series. Winters doesn't swear by personal choice but he also said they just didn't talk like that during the war, HBO just inserted the language for effect. Winters wasn't happy and let Hanks have it.

I read that and the book written by Buck Compton, wherein he angrily disputes BoB's portrayal of him suffering combat fatigue in Bastogne. (He also hated Nixon, which was an interesting aspect they left out of the mini-series.)

Winters was also pissed about the episode where it showed him wandering around Paris reliving the killing of the German sentry in Holland. He said nothing like that ever happened.

There are a few glaring factual errors in BoB. But, much like Gettysburg, it probably as close to historical accuracy as Hollywood's ever going to get.

[VAChief]

[Bradshaw, Aikman, Elway, Namath...they all got interviewed for their episodes.[/QUOTE]

So they must not be dicks...this line of thinking that because he hasn't worked he must be a dick lacks some logic...I would say maybe he doesn't have talent for getting endorsements, or lacks the motivation...being a dick would be farther down the list...I mean Bill O'Reilly has a nightly TV show...ditto Keith Olbermann...bigger pricks would be hard to find.

[Delano]

To: Joe Montana

upi

Sincerely,
Dane
Posted via Mobile Device