Rush

[anfield5]

Sensationalised Hollywood crap to be perfectly blunt. Melodramatic nonsense could be another description.

Grand Prix keeps it's spot as the best F1 based movie.

Stop sitting on the fence and tell us what you really think!

I do tend to sit on the fence a lot don't I

[kup]

1976 Formula 1 season UPS Top-5 standings:

645 = J`Scheckter 4320 / 6,7 - Real RUSH Hero!
535 = J`Hunt 3962 / 7,4
467 = N`Lauda 3313,5 / 7,1
460 = C`Regazzoni 4000 / 8,7
440 = T`Pryce 4228 / 9,6

UPS - Universal Points System.

What is UPS? It is easy like X=Y/Z, where
X - UPS participant's (driver's, team's) points;
Y - participant's total driven distance in a season (number of races);
Z - participant's average finish position in a season.

UPS is like type of Power Ranking based on Distance & Average Finish.

[D-Type]

1976 Formula 1 season UPS Top-5 standings:

645 = J`Scheckter 4320 / 6,7 - Real RUSH Hero!
535 = J`Hunt 3962 / 7,4
467 = N`Lauda 3313,5 / 7,1
460 = C`Regazzoni 4000 / 8,7
440 = T`Pryce 4228 / 9,6

UPS - Universal Points System.

What is UPS? It is easy like X=Y/Z, where
X - UPS participant's (driver's, team's) points;
Y - participant's total driven distance in a season (number of races);
Z - participant's average finish position in a season.

UPS is like type of Power Ranking based on Distance & Average Finish.

kup,
This posting has absolutely no relevance on a thread requesting opinions about a much discussed film currently in the cinemas.
Please do not drag threads off topic.

[kup]

Hi D-Type, thanx for advice.
We do not have to so much over-quote each other.
My opinion: RUSH film, movie should be about Three (+Jody) drivers fight, battle, and not silly crap "good boy / bad boy"
To argument my view I posted UPS 1976 F1 standings.
If you do not got my idea, it is not means "off-topic" by anyway.
Regards. Peace.

[Malbec]

I haven't seen it but from the many reviews I read, it's doubtful that I will bother. Reviews and comments from N America show an amazing deficit of basic knowledge about F1. The context of teams and world Champions for the adjacent years are simply incorrect. Many (US) reviewers blithely point out the utter indifference to the sport in America. Still in 76 the US Grand Prix was held a 3 hour drive from NYC, home base for many of them. In addition a US West GP was ran closer to Hollywood and the Canadian GP was at Mosport. Two short years after US had its second World Champion.
I'm really not sure these Hollywood flicks do any longterm good for the sport. Many viewers take their facts from the movie, or worse from the comments about the movie.

I completely disagree. I should also point out that I've not seen the movie, I believe it has taken a few liberties to tell a better story but its also a good film well acted and directed.

F1 is absolutely woeful at promoting itself. Any Hollywood attempt to portray the sport often has to contend with nerds pointing out that the wrong wheelnuts were used on the cars or that the wrong fonts were used on the sponsorship lettering. There seems to be a complete failure by those closest to the sport to see the bigger picture.

Sport is entertainment. Hollywood is entertainment too. Other sports including other motorsport formulae are able to use Hollywood to their advantage. F1 doesn't partly because of the lack of short term benefit and partly because F1 fans in particular get intensely hostile to anything that doesn't show their favoured aspect of the sport in its full glory. Meanwhile kids decide to follow other sports and get hooked on them, depriving motorsports of the next generation of fans, but thats fine because keeping the purity of racing on screen is far more important right?

I saw Senna with my wife who barely follows F1, and even then only to keep me amused. I completely agree with black knight that it was a simplified version of what happened which ignored many fascinating aspects both of Senna and the racing. Yet for my wife it gave her a very human aspect to what she previously saw as a cold impersonal sport won and lost on engineering. She told me that for the first time she could understand the dynamic between Vettel and Webber say, or Hamilton and Alonso 2007. After that she started to follow (vaguely) what happened on track and has become more interested in the sport. Guess what, thats one non-F1 fan converted into a partial fan. Is that really a bad thing? If so why? Would she have been more interested if the 'Senna' movie dissected Senna's special relationships with Honda or God?

As a motorsport fan you should welcome any decent portrayal of the sport by Hollywood or on TV. Increased interest means a better future for motorsports in general, whether its because of more money coming in, bigger crowds at events or less opposition to racing tracks trying to shut them down.

[steveaki13]

I thought about going to see it, but decided I would just wait until it becomes available on DVD or something.

As I am not worried about the Cinema aspect.

[FAL]

Some here need to read the whole thread on AtlasF1TNF (the real anoraks of motorsport history, most, like me, around at the time). Merciless criticism of everything revealed in advance about the film and horror at a couple of sequences (one actually in the trailer) that were then not in the film itself. Most,including me, then saw the film and thought it was pretty good - as good as it can ever get in a commercial movie. All who went with partners who were not in the least interested in motorsport (my wife for one) found their partners thought it good to excellent.
Somehow the inaccuracies and omissions didn't detract from it. Scary likeness of Lauda by DB. Hunt much less so.

[ShiftingGears]

What facts are wrong?

One example, just suppose a casual reader is getting his information from this NY Daily News Review of Rush:

"In 1976, British driver James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) is a flashy, entitled young superstar in need of self-discipline if he’s to move into Formula One. When he finally does, he has a posh sponsor in Ferrari, a sleek new car waiting for him, a sexy girlfriend who shows up on cue — and, fairly quickly, a racing rival — Niki Lauda"

That reviewer is an idiot. The movie introduces the rivalry well before F1, in Formula 3 at Brands Hatch. But if the reviewer was paying attention they would know the basic facts that were established in the movie.

The inaccuracies that I noted:

One thing they did do was show a character arc for Hunt that wasn't accurate. When Hunt thought he lost the title in the movie he was apologising profusely to his pit crew - in reality he was shouting obscenities at them.

The scene with the journalist with Hunt was a cringe moment, one of the only true "Hollywood" moments, I think.

Attention to detail like the driver positions at Fuji wasn't there - as such, Jones was airbrushed out of the movie. The implication was also made that Hunt would drive in a car with condom advertisements, when it was Jones that did this. Hunt's win at Zandvoort 1975 wasn't even mentioned, which I thought was an important career moment in the arc of this "story". Hunt's disqualification from the British Grand Prix wasn't mentioned.

Whilst it was always going to be difficult to replicate past circuits it was a bit jarring to see that Monza wasn't used for the footage of the Italian Grand Prix.

However all things considered I thought it was pretty good.

[Bagwan]

I liked it .
But for a few items missed , no doubt to make it less complicated and understandable for the masses , it was great .

In particular , I found the feeling of speed , and the violence in the suspension for example , to be really well illustrated .
The sense of where the computer animation synced in was pretty seamless .
You get the feeling of the danger involved .

I think it is worth the time and money to see it at the cinema .

[Parabolica]

A friend, whose opinion I value highly, and who has no great interest in motorsport, told me this -

It's ok, if viewed as a comedy.