re: Rounders

quote:

---

For example in The Client, Susan Sarandon and kid drive from Memphis to New Orleans, when they show them getting to the city, they are crossing the GNO Bridge into the city. If anyone knows New Orleans, you know that is not how you'd get to the city from Memphis, but the shot of the bridge with the city in the background is a much better shot then turning off I55 in LaPlace. So while i roll my eyes, it's nitpicky, because it doesn't matter. Having a dealer with Mike and KGB would just clutter the table and is not necessary.

---

This is a good example, and it's also important to note that Rounders came out pre-poker craze, so it had to explain things to a novice audience. When this movie came out, a majority o the audience had never even HEARD of Texas hold 'em, and now its the standard game that everyone knows.

It's why they made Teddy KGB's tell so obvious. If the movie comes out today, his tell would be much more subtle, but in the early 90s, it needed to be something bigger (and more cinematic, so the audience could see it).

Actually, this film is notable because its one of the first mainstream films to have a climatic poker hand that is somewhat realistic. Compare the big hands in this movie to, say, the hands in Casino Royale, in which everyone has a four of a kind or a royal flush.

Also, the film clearly did its research, despite the assertion otherwise. It knows its history, but it also shows a wide variance of poker games throughout the film, not just Texas no limit. Over the course of the film, Mike plays Omaha, Chicago, 7-card stud, limit hold 'em, draw, hi-lo, and various limit/no-limit variants. Besides, using Johnny Chan as the stand-in for the poker savant over Stu Unger, who was probably the most famous poker player at the time, made logical sense given the fact Stu was about to kill himself with drug abuse, which also made him an unreliable guy to put in the movie.

quote:

---

The sad part is that you can't ask me the right questions to confirm that.

---

ah, but this comment does confirm my contention however.

quote:

---

And Chan did not fold before the river card(River card). He folded preflop which is something you don't see anybody do after putting in multiple bets in a limit game.

---

I haven't seen the movie in a while so don't remember the exact details of the scene and already said you may be on point there, but that it doesn't matter since we don't really know if it "actually" happened or if the character was just making it up.

quote:

---

One more thing. In the movie Mike said about No Limit Holdem "the game is so volatile that some players won't play it". Anybody who knows anything about poker knows that Pot Limit Omaha(PLO) by far is the most volatile game. Again, if the filmmaker did a bit of research, the would know this.

---

goodness gracious, it's a movie

quote:

---

Johnny had the climactic final hand that they could show Mike watching video of. Many WSOP finals don't end with that big move on the last hand. Plus, wasn't Johnny a recent two-time WSOP winner? I thought it fit pretty well at the time of the movie.

---

Correct on all counts. I totally agree, and I would've used Johnny as well, particularly because you have TV footage of one of his wins. Stu Unger was the poker-savant who a person on the street may have heard of back in 1998 (funny, he's become less famous in death as poker has boomed), but he was a drug-addicted waster on his way to killing himself the year the movie came out. No way they were putting him in a film.

Chan had the skins, and the looks, of an elite poker player.

quote:

---

goodness gracious, it's a movie

---

If that's your logic then no movies can be critiqued. If anyone ever said anything bad about a movie all you have to do is "good gracious, it's a movie". This is a movie/tv forum. Peolpe discuss in details shows/movies. Look how long at the game of thrones theories thread. And Star Wars, and comic book movies.

To me that lame statement is an evasion. Just shows that you came in to debate, realize that you're wrong, and your only counter is evasion. It's weak and I see through it.

Imagine if someone goes in the new ghostbusters movie thread and responds to all the criticism "good gracious, it's a movie". Give me facts or reason to back up your statement.

quote:

---

Trying to show off "brilliance" and knowledge about poker and putting down anyone that doesn't "know" poker as much as you and making assumptions about them and the film makers.

---

You called me out earlier. And I step out. You got no next move. So what you do? Now you're saying I'm trying to "show off".

Staying out the obvious is not nitpick. As an earlier poster said, any legit room needs a dealer to cut the raje to make a profit. Ever see Cincinnati kid in the 70s? They had a dealer. Was that too advanced for the director back then?

It's like making a profession golf movie and the golfer has to carry his clubs from hole to hole. All I'm saying is try to make it right on the obvious stuff.

Fwiw, not every poker room is raking from the pot. Some charge a fee every hour and thats the profit.


and yes youre nitpicking a movie that is on a 'sport' that no one even knew anything about at the time.

quote:

---

goodness gracious, it's a movie

---

Not to mention, the second statement doesn't even contradict the first, since, assuming the quote is correct, the movie doesn't claim no limit texas hold 'em is the most volatile game.

quote:

---

were they showing half of a card before?

---

The "w" is silent, baw. Think about it.

quote:

---

The "w" is silent, baw. Think about it.

---

i am well aware of what is going on, thanks though