Borg McEnroe Movie

[Rodjk #613]

They are making a movie about the 1980 Wimbledon final. Shia LaBeouf and Sverrir Gudnason star as John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg in the movie "Borg/McEnroe"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5727282/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_1

A photo of the stars of the film side by side of the original photo.
http://i.imgur.com/ZB1BhW1.jpg

Rodjk #613

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-7, Rodjk #613 wrote:

> They are making a movie about the 1980 Wimbledon final. Shia LaBeouf and Sverrir Gudnason star as John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg in the movie "Borg/McEnroe"

Too bad tennis movies never work.

[*skriptis]

"Rodjk #613" <rjk...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Surprisingly bad costumes? I mean it looks great on them, they
look charming, but couldn't they get the proper length? Too long.

The stuff these guys are wearing don't look 80ish same way Borg
and Mac do. It looks better, but less real.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[Bharath Purohit]

Sounds interesting

[TT]

Good lookalike for Borg...

[soccerfan777]

He he funny they got a real life asshole to play McEnroe. What's next Justin Bieber as Jimmy Connors?

[MBDunc]

I actually liked Wimbledon: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_25

It had all the sport movie cliches you can think of for sure.

But I liked it, just because it did not try anything extra, instead it was a love story on court. Bettany/Dunst chemistry and acting was great.

.mikko

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 6.10.2016 11:02, MBDunc wrote:
> keskiviikko 5. lokakuuta 2016 9.09.27 UTC+3 Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-7, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>
>>> They are making a movie about the 1980 Wimbledon final. Shia LaBeouf and Sverrir Gudnason star as John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg in the movie "Borg/McEnroe"
>>
>> Too bad tennis movies never work.
>
> I actually liked Wimbledon: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_25

No release, and the popularity is already downward trending.

> It had all the sport movie cliches you can think of for sure.

Which kinda maked it fun.

> But I liked it, just because it did not try anything extra, instead it was a love story on court. Bettany/Dunst chemistry and acting was great.

Bettany's street cred is rather thin, yet I strangely enough like his
acting. Some things you just can't explain.

Dunst has a HUGE boner-value. Why it is there, nobody really knows, but
there it is.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 6.10.2016 11:18, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 6.10.2016 11:02, MBDunc wrote:
>> keskiviikko 5. lokakuuta 2016 9.09.27 UTC+3 Gracchus kirjoitti:
>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-7, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>
>>>> They are making a movie about the 1980 Wimbledon final. Shia LaBeouf
>>>> and Sverrir Gudnason star as John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg in the
>>>> movie "Borg/McEnroe"
>>>
>>> Too bad tennis movies never work.
>>
>> I actually liked Wimbledon:
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_25
>
> No release, and the popularity is already downward trending.

Was referring to the Borg-Mcenroe movie. What's interesting in those guys?

[Whisper]

The '80 Wimbledon final was the most iconic tennis match of open era &
possibly all time. It's the 1st match I ever watched in entirety & got
me hooked on tennis. No match has come remotely close to it since I've
been watching tennis - & I mean remotely. It stands alone at no.1 &
daylight 2nd. It's definitely worth making a movie, but it has to be
done right with very smart & talented tennis people.

[soccerfan777]

Something tells me this is a disaster in the making. McEnroe was involved in many important 5 setters with great champions like Borg (Wimbledon), Connors (Wimbledon), Lendl (FO), Becker (Davis Cup), Wilander (Davis Cup) and frequently ended up losing them :-)

[Gracchus]

For me, the problem with tennis movies (aside from some like "Players" that was bad in every way except the cameos) is that for some reason, the sport of tennis doesn't translate well to the screen in a fictional format. I think part of the reason is that these stories aren't made for tennis fans the way that films about football, baseball, etc. are for their fans. You can tell that the actors aren't anywhere close to pro level, and if they use doubles, it's obvious. So the tennis scenes end up looking cheesy, but the filmmakers are apparently ok with that because they assume the general public won't know the difference.

Another problem may be showing the scope of action without losing dramatic focus on the characters. Seeing a player crack a match-winning ace lacks the cinematic drama of a World Series home run swing ala "The Natural."

[TT]

6.10.2016, 20:58, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> For me, the problem with tennis movies (aside from some like "Players" that was bad in every way except the cameos) is that for some reason, the sport of tennis doesn't translate well to the screen in a fictional format.

In principle, there shouldn't be any reason why one can't make a
brilliant tennis film... as on any sport.

For example a racing film can be great, or then it can be "Le Mans"...
depends on a film. The best sports films are generally not about the
sport itself but the characters...

[TT]

6.10.2016, 20:58, Gracchus kirjoitti:

> Seeing a player crack a match-winning ace lacks the cinematic drama of a World Series home run swing ala "The Natural."

If you feel that way, maybe another way to go would be a player missing
an easy sitter matchball on biggest match - and then cue ending of
Cincinnati Kid...

[Gracchus]

I'd love to see that brilliant tennis film made. I agree with you that if the story and characters are strong, the potential for a good film is there. But IMO in putting it together, the filmmakers need to respect fans of the sport enough to represent the action scenes well enough not to be laughable.

[soccerfan777]

Hey it translated well on Strangers On a Train...

[Gracchus]

It definitely didn't. For one thing, in the novel that character wasn't even a tennis player, he was an architect. And the tennis scenes were horribly-done in the film. It was obvious Farley Granger had probably never picked up a tennis racquet in his life before.

[soccerfan777]

Or taken an acting lesson ;-) I was just kidding. The tennis scenes are indeed horrible. But I still like the movie.

[TT]

You've seen nothing until you've not seen "Number One", where Bob Geldof
becomes snooker world champion. :)

Paul Newman and Tom Cruise were relatively good. Jackie Gleason looked
like a real pool shark, with soft touch etc.

[Tier3]

The thing about tennis movies is the tennis. How do you make LaBoof look like McEnroe playing? The tennis played by actors who are at best tennis hacks always looks ridiculous in movies, which is actually entertaining to watch. And this movie is centered on the match itself so there will need to be a lot of action. Still, a movie?The guy who plays Borg won't have to memorize a lot of script.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, October 6, 2016 at 12:38:36 PM UTC-7, Tier3 wrote:

> The guy who plays Borg won't have to memorize a lot of script.

"It was a good match and John play very well."

"Nothing performs like a Saab."

[grif]

On 06/10/2016 20:38, Tier3 wrote:
> The guy who plays Borg won't have to memorize a lot of script.

Lol.

[Whisper]

All valid points. Imo it can be done well, but does require a lot more
skill from the producers than for other sports. You can't have too much
tennis or too little - needs to be the right balance, & key parts of the
match. The great pop songs in history are very simple & few in words,
but invoke great imagery & implied themes etc. That's the kind of talent
a tennis flick needs. I've seen a couple of tennis movies from 40's &
50's & they were enjoyable.

I'm going to watch 'Little Mo' (1978) tonight. Read some good reviews &
will be a little cheesy I'm sure, but I'll probably like it.

[Whisper]

On 7/10/2016 5:09 AM, TT wrote:
> 6.10.2016, 20:58, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>> For me, the problem with tennis movies (aside from some like "Players"
>> that was bad in every way except the cameos) is that for some reason,
>> the sport of tennis doesn't translate well to the screen in a
>> fictional format.
>
> In principle, there shouldn't be any reason why one can't make a
> brilliant tennis film... as on any sport.
>

Agreed. Just need the right production team.

[Whisper]

Yes, & that's possible with today's technology. I've even seen it done
pretty well in the 50's so no excuse. Tennis fans tend to have higher
IQ than say baseball/gridiron fans so you can't halfarse it. It just
needs creative writers who happen to be hardcore tennis fans.

[Whisper]

On 7/10/2016 6:38 AM, Tier3 wrote:
> The thing about tennis movies is the tennis. How do you make LaBoof look like McEnroe playing? The tennis played by actors who are at best tennis hacks always looks ridiculous in movies, which is actually entertaining to watch. And this movie is centered on the match itself so there will need to be a lot of action. Still, a movie?The guy who plays Borg won't have to memorize a lot of script.
>

This guy could play Rafa in a modern movie;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHr3SoVhiXU

[Scott]

I agree about the 1980 final. I was yelling at my TV at times.

Too bad the first set was an easy one for Mac. This is the only blemish on that match.

[Gracchus]

Exactly. As you said, it needs the right balance as well as high production values. They can't err in one direction or the other with too many long shots or close-ups. They have to make the game visceral even for non-players so they understand why people love to watch and play it. It isn't enough to write a good human story where the tennis itself is incidental.

[Whisper]

On 7/10/2016 11:51 AM, Scott wrote:
> I agree about the 1980 final. I was yelling at my TV at times.
>
> Too bad the first set was an easy one for Mac. This is the only blemish on that match.
>

Not really. It set the early tone & got people thinking Mac would crush
him - added to the rollercoaster of emotions.

[Whisper]

Yes needs both to make it a 'human' & 'tennis' movie that tells a good
story. I'm thinking of all the tennis movies I've seen & taking the
best bits from each (satisfying level of tennis from one, human story
from another etc), & it's clear it can be done in theory.

Problem is most movies today are crap in general & it's not easy to make
something worth watching, but that's where the talent/skill comes in.
The people to make it exist, just need to bring them together & fund it.
Always comes back to $$ - how much demand is there for a great tennis
movie? There's always risk involved, but potential pay-off is there if
they get it right.

[TT]

7.10.2016, 3:51, Scott kirjoitti:
> I agree about the 1980 final. I was yelling at my TV at times.

You mean your parents' TV...

[Whisper]

Scott was watching a replay on his mom's tv. No way can anyone with his
posting style be older than 18.

[Scott]

Is that a polite way to speak of the 2016 YE #1? :)

[bob]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 20:04:14 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

either that or scott was watching from an institution.

bob

[bob]

On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 23:09:25 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-7, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>
>> They are making a movie about the 1980 Wimbledon final. Shia LaBeouf and Sverrir Gudnason star as John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg in the movie "Borg/McEnroe"
>

>Too bad tennis movies never work.

i thought "match pt." wasn't half bad, see that one?

bob

[bob]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:17:29 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

>On 6/10/2016 7:24 PM, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 6.10.2016 11:18, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

>>> On 6.10.2016 11:02, MBDunc wrote:
>>>> keskiviikko 5. lokakuuta 2016 9.09.27 UTC+3 Gracchus kirjoitti:

>>>>> On Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 11:01:56 PM UTC-7, Rodjk #613 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> They are making a movie about the 1980 Wimbledon final. Shia LaBeouf
>>>>>> and Sverrir Gudnason star as John McEnroe and Bjorn Borg in the
>>>>>> movie "Borg/McEnroe"
>>>>>
>>>>> Too bad tennis movies never work.
>>>>

>>>> I actually liked Wimbledon:
>>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360201/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_25
>>>

>>> No release, and the popularity is already downward trending.
>>
>> Was referring to the Borg-Mcenroe movie. What's interesting in those guys?
>>
>>
>
>
>The '80 Wimbledon final was the most iconic tennis match of open era &
>possibly all time. It's the 1st match I ever watched in entirety & got
>me hooked on tennis. No match has come remotely close to it since I've
>been watching tennis - & I mean remotely. It stands alone at no.1 &
>daylight 2nd. It's definitely worth making a movie, but it has to be
>done right with very smart & talented tennis people.

i watched tennis (mostly wim and uso finals) thoughout the late 70s,
there were some good borg, connors and nastase matches. but the
mac/borg 80 wim final was the best match i ever saw in most
categories.

bob

[Scott]

Bob, I am the RST tipping YE #1 for 2016. You are either Whisper's conjoined twin or are Whisper's sock puppet. In either case, you are a Sampras fanboy incapable of objective tennis analysis. As a lower tier poster than most, you need to study more and write less if you ever hope to gain credibility.

[bob]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 16:30:56 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bob, I am the RST tipping YE #1 for 2016. You are either Whisper's conjoined twin or are Whisper's sock puppet. In either case, you are a Sampras fanboy incapable of objective tennis analysis. As a lower tier poster than most, you need to study more and write less if you ever hope to gain credibility.

Scott, i'm glad they give you plenty of bandwidth in the institution.
society is getting gentler after all.

bob

[Scott]

Bob, your latest post is too similar to your 4:49 pm post. One of the ways you can try to get better at posting here is with less repetition. You should read the comments of better tennis analysts than you (at RST this is practically everyone but your sock puppet) and try to figure out how you can raise your level.

At the moment your level is not worth reading.

[bob]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 19:11:05 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bob, your latest post is too similar to your 4:49 pm post. One of the ways you can try to get better at posting here is with less repetition. You should read the comments of better tennis analysts than you (at RST this is practically everyone but your sock puppet) and try to figure out how you can raise your level. At the moment your level is not worth reading.

scott, is it lunchtime in the institution, hence you get some
bandwidth?

bob

[Scott]

Bob, three posts using the "institution" gag. Do you ever sense that others don't find your use of repetition to be that interesting?

[Guypers]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 5:38:47 PM UTC-4, Scott wrote:
> Bob, three posts using the "institution" gag. Do you ever sense that others don't find your use of repetition to be that interesting?

Drumpf is done, fork time!!

[TT]

I hear Hillary takes some nails and a hammer to Town Hall Debate. Trump
brings the coffin.

Bob the flowers.

[bob]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bob, three posts using the "institution" gag. Do you ever sense that others don't find your use of repetition to be that interesting?

ah, i see it's dinner time in the institution! internet access for the
inmates!!

bob

[Scott]

Bob, you have used your "institution" gag four times now. This suggests:

1. Life as a sock puppet is empty; you crave having more of an identity.

2. You are intensely jealous of the RST 2016 YE #1 tipping champ, and need an outlet for your frustration.

3. You secretly hope that you will be committed, as it would free you from the shame of being a professional sock puppet.

4. You fear others will notice that your tennis analysis is very ordinary, and reading your "insight" is boring for almost everyone here.

Whatever the cause, keep in mind that we are a family. If you are having problems coping as a sock puppet, you can express your concerns and RST will help you pull through them.

[TT]

9.10.2016, 4:09, Scott kirjoitti:
> 2. You are intensely jealous of the RST 2016 YE #1 tipping champ, and need an outlet for your frustration.

Bingo. :)

[Whisper]

Enjoy it for 4 more weeks. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump wins in a
landslide (on the day people will vote differently to what they say in
polls). I fear for your mental health after that. My advice is seek
some therapy & start getting prepared for it.

[TT]

Well as you believe that Trump may win in a landslide... I'm worried for
your *current* mental health.

[TT]

Btw, the "shy Trump voter" theory is bs. Trump voters are opposite of shy...

[Whisper]

The hardcore ones yes, but there is a huge contingent of silent voters
who are too embarrassed to admit they prefer Trump over Hillary. Don't
you think it strange just about everyone in the entertainment industry
(actors/singers) all say they vilify Trump? Statistically that's
impossible when the polling is so close, but they care about their image
so won't be associated with him publicly as he's easy to ridicule thanks
to his vile sound bytes.

All the voters Hillary 'thinks' she has in the bank will be awol on
election day.

[TT]

9.10.2016, 13:02, Whisper kirjoitti:
> The hardcore ones yes, but there is a huge contingent of silent voters
> who are too embarrassed to admit they prefer Trump over Hillary.

Not according to Nate Silver and Trump's polls vs success in primaries.

> Don't
> you think it strange just about everyone in the entertainment industry
> (actors/singers) all say they vilify Trump? Statistically that's
> impossible when the polling is so close,

Well California is not close polling at all.

And Hollywood is even more left wing.

> but they care about their image
> so won't be associated with him publicly as he's easy to ridicule thanks
> to his vile sound bytes.
>

Probably yes.

> All the voters Hillary 'thinks' she has in the bank will be awol on
> election day.

Perhaps, but why wouldn't same apply to Trump? Both are unpopular.

[Whisper]

Imo the people who say they are pro-Trump won't change their mind on
election day. A lot more people are embarrassed to admit they prefer
Trump than Hillary. It's this contingent - which I think could be very
large - that will decide the election.

It's hard for Nat Silver etc to predict this one because there's never
been anything like this. How do you estimate the size of the
'embarrassed majority'? Can't be done. It will be fun to watch though
& I'm guessing the result will surprise (maybe shock) a lot of people
:)

[TT]

9.10.2016, 13:20, TT kirjoitti:
> 9.10.2016, 13:02, Whisper kirjoitti:
>> The hardcore ones yes, but there is a huge contingent of silent voters
>> who are too embarrassed to admit they prefer Trump over Hillary.
>
> Not according to Nate Silver and Trump's polls vs success in primaries.
>
>> Don't
>> you think it strange just about everyone in the entertainment industry
>> (actors/singers) all say they vilify Trump? Statistically that's
>> impossible when the polling is so close,
>
> Well California is not close polling at all.
>
> And Hollywood is even more left wing.
>
>> but they care about their image
>> so won't be associated with him publicly as he's easy to ridicule thanks
>> to his vile sound bytes.
>>
>
> Probably yes.
>

Have to add that most voters/polled are not public figures, so the
comparison doesn't make sense...

[TT]

Giuliani the corpse.

[bob]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 20:18:42 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:

imagine if trump won and rafa retired in the same month?

bob

[bob]

On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 13:20:58 +0300, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>9.10.2016, 13:02, Whisper kirjoitti:
>> The hardcore ones yes, but there is a huge contingent of silent voters
>> who are too embarrassed to admit they prefer Trump over Hillary.
>
>Not according to Nate Silver and Trump's polls vs success in primaries.
>
>> Don't
>> you think it strange just about everyone in the entertainment industry
>> (actors/singers) all say they vilify Trump? Statistically that's
>> impossible when the polling is so close,
>
>Well California is not close polling at all.

california, NY and TX always vote the same way, as do most staes.
they're not up for debate.

it's the others mainly florida, ohio, virginia, pennsylvania that are
a big concern.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2016 18:09:36 -0700 (PDT), Scott <scot...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Bob, you have used your "institution" gag four times now. This suggests:

that you're in an institution and i've struck a nerve?


bob