"Consussion" The Movie, Who Is Behind This?

[DougDew]

23 hours ago, southwest1 said:

I never took issue with what you said nor was I offended DD. I just have a different vantage point than you do, which is perfectly fine naturally. Me, I prefer another person's vision on something because otherwise all you're seeing is non threatening bullet points in any debate on any subject. A film without perspective or a book without a thesis is like a video game with no rules or primary objective. Ultimately, we are playing the computer programers interpretation, design schematics, & scope of the game.  The trick is to take those neutral bullet points & show the audience how you interpret those facts. Science & math are different because their is always an equation, a formula, or a chemical reaction that will either solve a problem, cure a disease, & duplicate the same outcome under specific conditions. Yes, there is value in examining how certain areas of the brain are affected by repeated collisions to specific regions are traumatized by slamming into the skull. 

 

You can't read a book or watch a movie based on a book without seeing the final product filtered through their eyes DD. I will acknowledge though that it is possible to have a different interpretation from an author & director on the same subject matter, but I would surmise that 85-90% of what we hear & see is thru somebody else's filter in this world. We just have to decide whether or not we find the source credible or faulty in their assertions. 

 

Regarding concussions in the sport of professional football, there isn't much debate on the harmful side effects of concussions just how fans perceive whether or not the risks & financial rewards are worth it. 

 

There is social meaning in football BTW: Can the elite team maintain their place at the top of the mountain? Can the underdog prove why they should not have been overlooked or underestimated? Can a team come together despite injuries & do what no one saw coming. Yes on all 3 questions which speaks to human excellence, adversity, & resiliancy etc. etc. 

You are being very philosophical and somewhat abstract.  And yes, just about everything we see involves somebody producing it.  The way in which I determine if something is credible is by comparing the evidence used in various media products, when they don't intend for that evidence  to be compared.

For example, take the topic of slavery in the 1800's.  When watching the movie Roots, I got a very sad and angry feeling towards how slaves were treated.  Being whipped, beaten, controlled, etc...Then years later, I read a book about .the accomplishments of  former slaves.  They were often described as people who bought their freedom.....a freed slave through monetary payment.  Apparently, they were paid...and some had the wherewithal to save enough money to free themselves from their owner.  It certainly is a sad period of our history, but the two situations are inconsistent with each other.   To me, being able to buy one's freedom and stay free the rest of your life as well as having the freedom to accomplish things of magnitude does not square with the notion of being constantly lynched, beaten, and shackled as a matter of common practice.

My point is that the facts presented by the authors MUST  be bits and pieces of history chosen in a way that supports the message they want to deliver.  When compared with each other, the evidence used by one disproves the conclusions made by the other, even though they were both written as being historically accurate, and were written to help the reader form a positive opinion of slaves. 

And now I trust nothing I read on the subject.

The habit of using bits and pieces of history when "educating" the reader/viewer is why I am skeptical if any writer or producer claims to have insight into how the NFL addresses matters of social concern..

[Superman]

4 hours ago, ColtRider said:

Isn't Simpson a company that is completely entrenched into impact products & protocols for many sports? From NASCAR to the NFL? 

Just motorsports. The football helmets are a recent adventure of his.

[BOTT]

2 hours ago, NorthernBlue said:

But no one would want to watch a documentary

I happen to like documentaries.  Better than watching a movie that will be 80% nonsense

[southwest1]

15 minutes ago, BOTT said:

I happen to like documentaries.  Better than watching a movie that will be 80% nonsense

Exactly BOTT, documentaries done well can be very entertaining, insightful, & enthralling on a whole host of subjects. Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition was fascinating.

I enjoy watching illegal activities being chronicled with a scholarly touch. Nice.

[DougDew]

7 hours ago, southwest1 said:

Exactly BOTT, documentaries done well can be very entertaining, insightful, & enthralling on a whole host of subjects. Ken Burns documentary on Prohibition was fascinating.

I enjoy watching illegal activities being chronicled with a scholarly touch. Nice.

My favorite TV program ever was Ken Burns documentary on the Lewis and Clark/Corps of Discovery expedition.  Just tell it like it is....no need to try to embed a message.

[ColtRider]

9 hours ago, BOTT said:

I happen to like documentaries.  Better than watching a movie that will be 80% nonsense

Yes. Don't mind watching movies that follow 100% truth. Documentaries, biographies, science, space, & what ifs are good as well.

[Jim H.]

Follow the $$.  You'll likely find a host of attorneys and the NFLPA.

[ColtRider]

5 minutes ago, Jim H. said:

Follow the $$.  You'll likely find a host of attorneys and the NFLPA.

Yikes. Here it comes ... (duck, Jim H.)

[OffensivelyPC]

So I was looking at box office numbers for Star Wars (which is insane BTW), and saw this movie.  It's doing terribly.  Budget was $35m, which seems pretty low.  It's been out 2 weeks and is at $25m.  It's practically non-existent in the international market, which isn't surprising.  But at the rate it is going, if it drops much further after this weekend, I wouldnt be surprised if it's pulled by the end of the month.  Might be lucky to break even.

 

Here's the domestic sales:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=concussion2015.htm

[chad72]

On 12/2/2015 at 10:50 AM, ColtRider said:

Yes. Don't mind watching movies that follow 100% truth. Documentaries, biographies, science, space, & what ifs are good as well.

 

The problem is even truth becomes relative nowadays, based on which side of the truth one aligns themselves to.

 

One man's trash is another man's treasure and one man's hero is another man's terrorist. Some folks chase fine print over the main content, some folks choose to focus on the main content and ignore the fine print.

 

That is the world we live in.

[Dustin]

TELL DA TROOTH

[pgt_rob]

1 hour ago, Dustin said:

TELL DA TROOTH

 

You crack me up man.

[amfootball]

3 hours ago, OffensivelyPC said:

So I was looking at box office numbers for Star Wars (which is insane BTW), and saw this movie.  It's doing terribly.  Budget was $35m, which seems pretty low.  It's been out 2 weeks and is at $25m.  It's practically non-existent in the international market, which isn't surprising.  But at the rate it is going, if it drops much further after this weekend, I wouldnt be surprised if it's pulled by the end of the month.  Might be lucky to break even.

 

Here's the domestic sales:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=concussion2015.htm

I think people are sick and tired of hearing about concussions. Not to say it is not a hugely important issue. But movies are for entertainment and given the over saturation of this issue, I can see why it is not doing well. I am sure it may do better once it hits DVD/Netflix. That is when I plan to watch it and I am a huge football fan and love Wil Smith but I will not pay to go see it at the theatre.

[OffensivelyPC]

18 minutes ago, amfootball said:

I think people are sick and tired of hearing about concussions. Not to say it is not a hugely important issue. But movies are for entertainment and given the over saturation of this issue, I can see why it is not doing well. I am sure it may do better once it hits DVD/Netflix. That is when I plan to watch it and I am a huge football fan and love Wil Smith but I will not pay to go see it at the theatre.

Not $12-$15 anyway. lol

 

The other thing is I just think that most people realize that while the NFL was dumb for what it did in the 90s and before, denying the issue existed basically, they also understand that the NFL is trying to right that wrong.  In addition, I think people understand players tacitly take on a risk despite the fact they don't fully understand it.  At least now, I think everyone is trying to do the right thing by protecting players and advancing technology to reduce head trauma and all that.  But it's still a body of medical practice that we just don't have a grasp on yet.  

[OffensivelyPC]

3 hours ago, Dustin said:

TELL DA TROOTH

Tell the tooth?

[amfootball]

3 minutes ago, OffensivelyPC said:

Not $12-$15 anyway. lol

 

The other thing is I just think that most people realize that while the NFL was dumb for what it did in the 90s and before, denying the issue existed basically, they also understand that the NFL is trying to right that wrong.  In addition, I think people understand players tacitly take on a risk despite the fact they don't fully understand it.  At least now, I think everyone is trying to do the right thing by protecting players and advancing technology to reduce head trauma and all that.  But it's still a body of medical practice that we just don't have a grasp on yet.  

Yeah, Good points. The NFL has been addressing it. I feel like this movie is about 3 years too late to the scene.

[bababooey]

53 minutes ago, amfootball said:

I think people are sick and tired of hearing about concussions. Not to say it is not a hugely important issue. But movies are for entertainment and given the over saturation of this issue, I can see why it is not doing well. I am sure it may do better once it hits DVD/Netflix. That is when I plan to watch it and I am a huge football fan and love Wil Smith but I will not pay to go see it at the theatre.

100%, why during christmas are people going to be miserable at the movie theater? Who wants to be miserable? Everyone is seeing star wars, young people are seeing Daddy's Home and Sisters, kids are seeing Chipmunks, tons of people are seeing Hateful Eight and Revenant. Older adults and senior citizens are seeing the Big Short (great movie). Definitely waiting for Video on Demand for Concussion and I also love football and Will Smith.

[crazycolt1]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2015 at 7:54 PM, Pagano's Realtor said:

It looks like a boring movie to be honest, but I think it's an important movie. I'm also a fan of anything that shows just how incompetent Roger Goodell is as a commissioner and how he works on behalf of the owners as a puppet.

The NFL and it's cover up of concussions started way before Goodell was even considered to be a commissioner. If anything it was Goodell who has brought more light on the subject. If you are going to have a problem with Goodell find one that is not related to this subject because Goodell has raised the awareness and has put into place rules to improve concussions.

[southwest1]

7 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

The problem is even truth becomes relative nowadays, based on which side of the truth one aligns themselves to.

 

One man's trash is another man's treasure and one man's hero is another man's terrorist. Some folks chase fine print over the main content, some folks choose to focus on the main content and ignore the fine print.

 

That is the world we live in.

I don't know Chad. You can't expect a filmmaker to be completely neutral or impartial even in a documentary. Otherwise, you end up just dispersing dates & historical milestones like a pez dispenser filled to the brim with chewing gum. The key here is to have a perspective on an issue & clue the audience in on what watershed events drew a group or sect to a specific conclusion.

 

Where it gets fascinating is when 2 opposing groups feel they are righteous & justified in their actions meaning neither side believes they are wrong. It's all about conflict resolution where nobody dies or feels that one side dismisses or trivializes their concerns. 

 

The only entity that must present balance is the voice over narrator whose purpose is to convey all sides with no judgements attached leaving the audience to determine what evidence they find credible or not.

 

If a person admits that they are biased in 1 direction upfront on an issue, I respect that because they are not pretending to be something there are not or a hypocrite which matters in my estimation. 

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

On November 30, 2015 at 3:03 PM, King Colt said:

A movie "Concussion" is coming out to, I assume will make our beloved commissioner look very bad and I would love to be a fly on the wall when preproduction meetings were going on. Are the players behind this film? I don't know the slant on this movie but it seems a bit of a reach to get anyone interested in this subject since no one really cares, we love our football at any cost especially when the people on the stretchers are not us. What's next, "Knee Injuries,The Untold Story"?

 

Wow.....     Concussion is a huge story....   both the real story and the movie behind the real story.   It's why the NFL is trying to pay One Billion dollars to the players to settle a suit.

 

The players have nothing to do with the story.

 

A writer wrote the script and Paramount Pictures, a major motion picture company,  made the movie.

 

Just because YOU don't care about the issue,  doesn't mean lots of fans feel the same way.    I'd guess quite the opposite.

 

 

[NewColtsFan]

4 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The NFL and it's cover up of concussions started way before Goodell was even considered to be a commissioner. If anything it was Goodell who has brought more light on the subject. If you are going to have a problem with Goodell find one that is not related to this subject because Goodell has raised the awareness and has put into place rules to improve concussions.

 

Goodell has both cooperated with,  and tried to hinder the understanding of the problem.    He's been on both sides of the fence playing fast and loose with the issue.     He is not a good guy,  nor a sympathetic guy in this story. 

 

[Patagonia Chris]

5 hours ago, crazycolt1 said:

The NFL and it's cover up of concussions started way before Goodell was even considered to be a commissioner. If anything it was Goodell who has brought more light on the subject. If you are going to have a problem with Goodell find one that is not related to this subject because Goodell has raised the awareness and has put into place rules to improve concussions.

 

I suggest you watch "League Of Denial" and read a couple of articles about the sketchy things he has done regarding pulling funds from the NIH study a few weeks ago. The rules changed as a result of lawsuits. The raise in awareness can be attributed to A LOT of bad press.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Pagano's Realtor said:

 

I suggest you watch "League Of Denial" and read a couple of articles about the sketchy things he has done regarding pulling funds from the NIH study a few weeks ago. The rules changed as a result of lawsuits. The raise in awareness can be attributed to A LOT of bad press.

I am not suggesting that Goodell is Mr. Good Guy but he does exactly as he is told to do by majority ownership. He is a very well paid yes man who is only a puppet to those majority owners. He is the paid face and takes the blunt of anything negative the owners don't want to be questioned about in public. It is planned that way by the owners. Way too many fans want to point the finger at Goodell when it is the owners who are responsible for everything going on. I highly doubt that Goodell makes any moves without being told what to do and how to handle it. It's easy for most fans to have one person to lay any blame on rather than the true people who deserve the negativity.

[Patagonia Chris]

1 minute ago, crazycolt1 said:

I am not suggesting that Goodell is Mr. Good Guy but he does exactly as he is told to do by majority ownership. He is a very well paid yes man who is only a puppet to those majority owners. He is the paid face and takes the blunt of anything negative the owners don't want to be questioned about in public. It is planned that way by the owners. Way too many fans want to point the finger at Goodell when it is the owners who are responsible for everything going on. I highly doubt that Goodell makes any moves without being told what to do and how to handle it. It's easy for most fans to have one person to lay any blame on rather than the true people who deserve the negativity.

 

Pretty sure I addressed that in the original post when I called him a puppet.

[crazycolt1]

2 minutes ago, Pagano's Realtor said:

 

Pretty sure I addressed that in the original post when I called him a puppet.

Then why are you singling him out when you see the whole picture?