Book...The Color of Money

I didn't say it was the worst pool film ever made, I said *in my humble opinion* it was the worst pool film ever made. MONUMENTAL difference. Just because its my opinion something is either good, bad or indifferent has no bearing on whether that thing really is any of the three. I could easily say, in my opinion, arsenic is a tasty and nutritional bedtime snack. Certainly would not make it so.

But to reiterate, IMHO, CoM is one of the worst films ever made and, hands down, the worst film about pool.

Doesn't make me right, simply my opinion. :wink:

I actually was going to say in my first post that I know it is your opinion. I am not saying you are right or wrong. I am just guessing that you have not seen some of the ‘b’ pool movies I listed. Imo, some of these movies make COM look like Citizen Kane. :grin:

COM may be a horrible movie to some. I just don’t know a word to describe just how more horrible some of the other movies are. Haha
 
Last edited:
Is it really that much worse than pool hall junkies?

At least color of money increased pool interest during the time it was playing in the theaters and bumped up the demand for Balabushka cues.

the only thing Pool hall junkies only was famous for was Ricky Schroder playing with a fiberglass cuetec.

Well, again, I'm very pleased for pool at the well-documented jump in pool interest resulting from CoM. And, again, that in no way changes my opinion of the film itself. Finally, I am drifting into "beating a dead horse" territory here so I'll refrain from responding to any other responses to my posts.
 
I actually was going to post in my first post that I know it is your opinion. I am not saying you are right or wrong. I am just guessing that you have not seen some of the ‘b’ pool movies I listed. Imo, some of these movies make COM look like Citizen Kane. :grin:

Ok, one more response as I feel it would be rude of me not to respond to you Ross and I don't want that. Your posts have been measured, calm, thought-out and polite. That said, actually? I've not seen *any* of the "B" films you mentioned. But, to me, and again, simply MHO, no pool film could possibly be worse then CoM, even were it made as a class project by 8th graders with their smart phones.
 
Ok, one more response as I feel it would be rude of me not to respond to you Ross and I don't want that. Your posts have been measured, calm, thought-out and polite. That said, actually? I've not seen *any* of the "B" films you mentioned. But, to me, and again, simply MHO, no pool film could possibly be worse then CoM, even were it made as a class project by 8th graders with their smart phones.

Thanks for the response. I would suggest you enjoy the nice Florida weather, then watch any of these other pool movies. Consider it me doing you a solid. Haha :)
 
Just finished reading the book.
Far superior to the movie, in my opinion. Great plot in the book with some good romance in it and a happy ending.
Why oh why didn't Scorcese listen to Grady and do the movie the better way. A way which would enhance the game instead of showing it to be seedy and crummy with dumping and all the usual stuff.
Grady was right about the film. You don't take a kid working in a toy store, take him on the road for a few weeks and he ends up beating real players.
And you don't take an alcoholic who's been out of serious action for 25 years, never played 9-Ball at all, and in a month he's beating real players either.
Does anyone else share my opinion of this book vs the film?
:thumbup:

Absolutely. But the book didn't have characters that Tom Cruise and Mary Elizabeth Mastroantonio could play, and once you decide you can't carry the project on Paul Newman alone and you have to run in a couple of young actors you are stuck with a completely rewritten story. The absurdity stems from not thinking Newman couldn't carry the movie - which was ridiculous. It is what happens when the money guys call the shots. Ironically, the fact that Newman won Best Actor in this turkey showed that he could have easily carried the much better movie that could have been made based on the book.

I had already read the book when the movie first came out, and I was so excited I did something I had never done before, and never since, - stood in a line to see it on opening weekend. What a tremendous disappointment it was.

If you liked the book, you might enjoy his (Walter Tevis) chess novel, The Queens Gambit.
 
Not a fan of Tom Cruise.
Still liked the movie ...... I will search for the book, and no doubt it will be MUCH better.
Such is the nature of Hollywood trying to make films of books. ��
 
Ok, one more response as I feel it would be rude of me not to respond to you Ross and I don't want that. Your posts have been measured, calm, thought-out and polite. That said, actually? I've not seen *any* of the "B" films you mentioned. But, to me, and again, simply MHO, no pool film could possibly be worse then CoM, even were it made as a class project by 8th graders with their smart phones.

Hardly anyone has. But the bigger point is that were reasonable expectations, based on the book, the budget, the Hustler connection, and the 'stars' that COM would not turn out to be the dreck it became. I doubt anyone had any expectation for those b movies.
 
I guess I'm in the minority here because I actually liked the movie more than the book. There wasn't anything gripping in the book, it just sort of plodded along. Whereas, the movie was edgy from start to finish.
 
Hmmmm....pool was fading in the face of Bowling & maybe golf for the action crowd...then The Hustler came out and revived it.

25 years later, non-stop action of the 70's was fading into the 80's and COM sparked a new generation.

I think availability of the internet (youtube) and all the league options including multiple league national tournaments has helped reduce the decline in recent years, but maybe it's time for anther (hopefully better) big box movie sequel.

smt, never very good at the game but active in the background in the 70/s 80/s, back again (& still struggling :D )since a few years ago.
 
I seem to remember hearing one story that the radical change in COM from the book to the movie story presented was something to the effect of the movie guys hearing about how Larry Hubbard took Mike Sigel on the road when he was young liked that plot line better than the novel. I'm not sure how true that is or if there is some other story in between, but I did hear or read that somewhere. I also thought that the book was much better than the movie and when it came out I wondered at the time why the stories were so different.
 
Hardly anyone has. But the bigger point is that were reasonable expectations, based on the book, the budget, the Hustler connection, and the 'stars' that COM would not turn out to be the dreck it became. I doubt anyone had any expectation for those b movies.

True dat. :cool:
 
I think there were about 3 things in common between the movie and the book. The title, the main character and that he returns to competitive pool. Not much else, but I enjoyed both.
 
Last edited:
Is also why pool isn't mainstream and won't achieve its true potential as a real sport in this country.


Horse-phooey.

"The Hustler" is what ignited a huge re-invigoration of the sport in this country. We *love* seedy, edgy, underbelly, slightly off stuff.

Lou Figueroa
guys with vests on
will kill it first
 
Last edited:
Same

The book was great but the acting performances by George Scott,
Piper Laurie & of course, Paul Newman seemed so authentic & masterful.

I played at Ames back in the early 60's and the film realistically portrayed
the ambience and feel of real action and big money pool games back then.

IMO, the film brings everything to life and again, the acting was so great &
filmed in B&W only made it all the more nostalgic to enjoy......The film wins!

I feel the same as you and I am in the same age bracket , but movies change with the times and as much as we ( Hustler fans ) hate to hear this the Hustler would most likely flopped in the mid 80's due to the change in the audience attention span from that of 1961. Books can and do go into more detail while a movie has to grab the audience attention early and fast , this amounts to a lot of detail being edited.

The movie appealed to a mass audience and brought flocks of people into the world of Pool , giving a Pool a resurgence that lasted 20 years . I would tale another bad Pool movie if it could duplicate that.
 
Is also why pool isn't mainstream and won't achieve its true potential as a real sport in this country.

The seediness of pool has absolutely nothing to do with it's lack of popularity. Let me spit some knowledge at you, so we can all just stop throwing out that old chestnut because we don't know the reason why. Once I explain it, you will know why pool is failing, and you no longer have to make up a reason.

Pool, and all other competitive games/sports, rely on a new influx of young, aggressive, competitive males to fill the ranks vacated by those too old to effectively compete. (Because males compete at a far higher rate than females..) With the rise of high fidelity video games with competitive leagues and leaderboards, these young aggressive males have an outlet to compete, that would have historically been provided to them by pool. And they start participating in this outlet far before they ever would have been able to set foot in a pool hall.

In addition, what makes any competitive outlet attractive is the endorphin/dopamine rush one gets once one has conquered a major hurdle. Young males get that constantly from playing video games custom-built to trigger these responses, so running a 9 ball rack is always gonna pale in comparison, and require WAY too much work. In fact, dopamine burnout may very well be responsible for skyrocketing rates of depression in today's society..

So, drop the BS about how pool's "image" is responsible for it's failure to be popular. Both movies in the past 50 years that caused huge resurgences in the game expressedly focused on the seedier aspects of the game.

No teenager/20 year old decides not to pursue a hobby just because the older generation doesn't approve. They decide to pursue it because it is "fun", nothing more. And pool has to compete against video games/social media for the "fun" factor, and is found lacking.

I may re-post this in it's own thread to get more visibility.
 
Which one?

I'm going to guess... Hill Street Blues. That's the one that the only police officers/detectives I know said was close, albeit with goofy characters at times.

Freddie <~~~ not counting "reality" TV
 
I'm going to guess... Hill Street Blues. That's the one that the only police officers/detectives I know said was close, albeit with goofy characters at times.

Freddie <~~~ not counting "reality" TV

I thought it would be T.J. Hooker. I mean.... James Tiberius Kirk with a new hairpiece AND a new uniform? What could possibly be more realistic? If not, I'm at a loss...
 
The seediness of pool has absolutely nothing to do with it's lack of popularity. Let me spit some knowledge at you, so we can all just stop throwing out that old chestnut because we don't know the reason why. Once I explain it, you will know why pool is failing, and you no longer have to make up a reason.

Pool, and all other competitive games/sports, rely on a new influx of young, aggressive, competitive males to fill the ranks vacated by those too old to effectively compete. (Because males compete at a far higher rate than females..) With the rise of high fidelity video games with competitive leagues and leaderboards, these young aggressive males have an outlet to compete, that would have historically been provided to them by pool. And they start participating in this outlet far before they ever would have been able to set foot in a pool hall.

In addition, what makes any competitive outlet attractive is the endorphin/dopamine rush one gets once one has conquered a major hurdle. Young males get that constantly from playing video games custom-built to trigger these responses, so running a 9 ball rack is always gonna pale in comparison, and require WAY too much work. In fact, dopamine burnout may very well be responsible for skyrocketing rates of depression in today's society..

So, drop the BS about how pool's "image" is responsible for it's failure to be popular. Both movies in the past 50 years that caused huge resurgences in the game expressedly focused on the seedier aspects of the game.

No teenager/20 year old decides not to pursue a hobby just because the older generation doesn't approve. They decide to pursue it because it is "fun", nothing more. And pool has to compete against video games/social media for the "fun" factor, and is found lacking.

I may re-post this in it's own thread to get more visibility.
sent you a greenie
to me very insightful post
 
Back
Top