Fab Five Documentary
Jesus Christ, this is not off topic!
I just changed it.
Would be leaving out an important part of the fab five and their legacy. Yes, getting to know King and Jackson better and how it changed their lives would be interesting. But this wasn't a documentary about them, it was about the Fab Five, the sum of the parts, and you can't leave out that big of a part of their story as a whole.
They spent Sooooooo much time talking about Webber and Rose before and after they were at Michigan - this documentary was about the members of the Fab Five - not just the Fab Five. To learn more about King and Jackson would have been fascinating and insightful.
Than what they were attempting to do. You originally claimed that they went of course with what they were trying to do, but they didn't. They were essentially reliving what the Fab Five meant to culture, college basketball, etc. You are talking about a totally different doc that would have King and Jackson as the focal point about fame passing them by, and if they wanted a doc on that they could probably get more intriguing people.
Like it or not, the Fab Five was primarily centered around Webber, Rose, and Howard. So the bulk of what happened has to do with them as well. Again, this was a doc about what happened to the Fab Five and how they changed the game and America. If King or Jackson were in the "crack house", or if King or Jackson took large sums of money, more would have been shed on them. But they didn't, so they didn't talk about that as much, which makes sense. What you're looking for is something completely different. What you're talking about would be called "Fab Five", because what you're talking about is King and Jackson. They did go into some background of King and Jackson, just not as much, because they weren't the focal point of the Fab Five, the Fab Five as a whole being the main purpose for the doc to begin with.
To add to the point, those sanctions are necessary to understanding how the Fab Five impacted the culture, including college basketball. The Fab Five was a huge deal at the time, but the legacy is tarnished because of what was later found out. To leave that out would be making a doc would only be telling half the story, the very much homer half, and leaving out the part where they screwed up, which is a huge part of their overall impact on sports and society.
Also, I don't disagree that more others (outsiders) could have been brought it, but they had a few in there to talk about the revolution the Fab Five made. But to take away the commentary of the Fab Five members themselves would leave us with a much less personal look at everything that happened and how the circumstances surrounded the Fab Five changed the culture, and how the culture changed the Fab Five. To take away that part of the doc would be completely foolish.
Also, they produced it, not directed it. Producers do have some say in what is said and put in it, but in the end it's the directors work. You're argument about the members shouldn't have been producers isn't correct, the members should have been directors, which they weren't.
Jesus Christ, i would have thought that with all your clout in the sports world that they would have asked your opinion.
What's fascinating about being a regular guy? Nothing, but you're Jesus Christ, so how would you know.
It would have been fascinating to see how these two guys have dealt with fame passing them by - seeing the other three rise to stardom and make millions of dollars while they're coaching high school basketball.
None of the sports documentaries they do are nearly as good as the HBO sports docs. Check out the new UNLV documentary if you want to see how documentaries should look.
What was wrong with the SMU or The U movies? Sure they are a lil one sided but I don't think HBO would have the ability to do 30 UNLV type movies....
HBO's Michigan vs. Ohio State doc was AMAZING, the Magic vs. Bird doc was AMAZING, the UNLV doc was AMAZING. They did a John Wooden doc that was epic.
Every sports doc they do is amazing. ESPN can't match that type of quality because they are too deeply involved in what they're reporting. ESPN has a conflict of interest in reporting on all these things because they are profiting off of them. ESPN is not a network of journalists and documentarians - it is a network full of people who are deeply involved in sports, profiting off of the success of sports. Some of the 30 for 30's were good, but a lot of them weren't - they don't have the high bar that HBO does, and they aren't removed enough from the story to tell it in a professional and non-partisan way that just comes across as amateur.
What made the HBO Michigan vs. Ohio State documentary so great is that HBO wasn't afraid to tell it like it is. They didn't have to worry about upsetting the Big Ten or making every party involved happy due to alterior motives. They had the creative freedom to do it exactly how they wanted to do it. ESPN can't do that because of broadcast contracts, TV rights, etc.
You left out Joe Louis, but spot on otherwise. I did like the Fab Five documentary, though.
The Michigan/OSU doc was awful. It was heavily slanted towards OSU. And frankly, the UNLV one pales compared to the Fab Five one.
If you show 'fab five' to a non UM fan I think they'd find it was a good documentary on its own. Good narrative arc, intrigue, character development, and well-rounded balance of sport/culture/historical significance/personalities. And I actually think they did extremely well considering the most prominent and controversial member of the group didn't participate...in fact I think that made it even better from an outsider standpoint.
I also reject the idea that HBO always does a better job on docs. Go watch 'the two escobars'. That movie is incredible, though 'King's ransom' fell a bit flat.
Kind of true but Traylor, Bulloch, etc. had as much to do with the destruction and sanctions placed upon the basketball program as the Fab Five did.
I'm not sure you can say the Fab Five Built the program. The basketball program was very successful in the mid to late 80's. The Fab Five's first season was '91-'92 and UM was only two years removed from winning the national title. They won the big ten title in the 84/85 season and 85/86 season. Made the sweet sixteen in the 87/88 season. Went to the ncaa tourney every year from 84/85 season through the 89/90 season. Yeah they had a real disappointing season in 90/91 but it wasn't like this was a program who was years removed from success when the Fab Five arrived.
The Fab Five merely brought the program back up to where it had been after a down year.
Some of the discussion of HBO vs. ESPN seems off base to me. What does ESPN do other than air it? Funds maybe? A guarantee? They seem independently produced.
More infomercial than documentary.
I disagree. You have to ask "What their legacy?" You can't talk about all the great things they did without talking about the fact that that the star was on the take. (And so were some of the others, albeit it smaller ways.) Many or most of them would never have played for M were it not for Ed Martin. Their legacy is exciting, but not exactly clean. It bothers me when fans only want the good parts memorialized.
I don't know about you but I wasin A2 when all of this took place and I thought the film did a wonderful job capturing everything that went down. I just wish they would have ackowledged Voskuil's and Riley's contributions to our 1992 tournament run. Without those two guys we simply don't get there. That's just the plain truth of it. The documentary makes it sound as if those 5 guys did everything on their own. But believe me they did have help. It would have been nice if they could have alloted 2 minutes or so (out of 138 minute running time) to point this out.
As for Webber...Here's the thing...Part of what makes Webber such a compelling and controversial figure is that of the 5 he was expected to be the best and the brightest. He was blessed with good looks and uncanny athletic ability (he had the softest hands you'll ever see and he could leap out of the gym). He was also soft spoken (the product of an elite private school education) and came from a hard working middle class family (i.e he wasn't poor). In short he had practically every advantage one could possibly have in life except for money. And even that wouldn't be a problem because he was the best basketball player in America his senior year of high school and during his 2 years of college. This last point is debateable but if you are judging on pure athletic ability he was better than anybody he ever went up against (including Laettner who some people believe is the greatest college basketball player to ever suit up - I'm not in this camp btw). So all of this begs the question...Why?
Imho, the answer to that question is not what you'd expect because it reveals an insecure young man who talked a very big game but didn't believe in himself enough to make the right decision when faced with what should have been an easy choice. As someone said to me yesterday he is our greatest basketball player and also our biggest dissapointment. And therein lies the rub. That said he should be embraced by his Michigan family because those of us who witnessed his two years at our University were treated to a glorious basketball run and a storyline the likes of which will never be replicated.
This was such a wonderfully presented reply. I don't agree with your last sentence and the conclusion drawn, but I don't necessarily disagree either--if that makes sense.