Talk:The Blind Side (film)

Issues

What are the issues?? Ddddan (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Only one small point. Not living in USA, I didn't know that University of Mississippi is also known as "Ole Miss" (till I clicked the link). It would be helpful if you added "Ole Miss" in brackets after the first mention of University of Mississippi. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.210.237 (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandra Bullock did not win the Best Actress Award from the Washington D.C. Film Critics Association, Carey Mulligan did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.180.96 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The introduction to this article does not mention that it is based on real people. I'd expect movie characters to be fictional, unless stated otherwise. I had never heard of this movie, and I was very confused when the article started talking about the characters as real people. Lakonislate (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The white watch

I would like to know what watch did Sandra have on. I want one and unsure where to start looking. I am a huge fan of Sandra and she did a great job..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.14.71 (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Critical Reception

Some critics like the Huffington Post, say that the movie may suggest a benevolent, controlling, authoritative attitude among southern whites who look after blacks, a descendant of the "good master" phenomenon. The POST jokes: "She even helps him learn to play football. Yes! A skinny white lady teaches someone about football!" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-blankenship/should-we-want-movies-lik_b_293888.html

The New York Times reports that the movie may simply use "reductive depictions of the complex realities of race and, especially, class." http://carpetbagger.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/wrestling-with-race-and-class/?scp=2&sq=sandra%20bullock&st=cse

I think the article should at least mention the New York Time's criticism. If you disagree with major criticism, then show critics who feel the opposite, don't silence it. Otherwise it is no longer a "Critical" reception. Rakovsky (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You started out by reposting a section that was already there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I was in the process of editing. Looks like you got a step ahead! Peace. Rakovsky (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Huffington Post would have preferred that he remain homeless? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the movie's premise of a white lady "taking in" black people is very good. But I admit the trailer did make him look semi-retarded, only able to communicate with small children, as the POST said. Rakovsky (talk) 09:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The trailer is not the movie. Also, blogs are not valid sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael appears semi-retarded every time he appears in the trailer. Is he smarter in the movie? I think the depiction is unfair, because uneducated blacks can be street-smart, and/or think quickly. On the other hand, yes maybe this movie just happens to be about a rich white lady who just happens to take in a poor, mildly retarded black youth.

FilmCube and latimesblogs.latimes.com are favorable blogs cited in the entry. Anyway, the article should say what the negative view is, and it has some merit. Rakovsky (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Especially if you think he would have somehow been better off remaining homeless and uneducated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

She did the right think and the movie is good to encourage people to care for homeless, uneducated blacks. But the criticism that he is portrayed as mentally childlike and helpless, who owes everything -even playing sports- to a white "benefactor" has merit. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakovsky (talk • contribs) 10:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If those writers really think that, then they didn't watch the movie. Sorry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is he smarter in the movie? Rakovsky (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Sounds like you didn't watch the movie either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

HAHA Rakovsky (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a "yes" or a "no"? I saw it yesterday. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And, in fact, the Huffington Post article is strictly a critique of the trailer. Maybe you want a separate section about the trailer? Movie trailers often distort a film's content in favor of trying to hype the film. This one is no different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I only saw the trailer, that's why. I tried posting at the same time as you: Ann Hornday writes in her article cited in WIKIPEDIA: "There's been something off-putting about the ad campaign for "The Blind Side," a drama about a white woman who adopts an African American high school student, from trailers trafficking in nearly every troubling African American stereotype in movies (from the Magical Negro to the surly low-level bureaucrat), to posters featuring the patronizing image of Sandra Bullock gently leading her looming, gentle giant of a son down a football field. It turns out that "The Blind Side" is much better than its ads" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakovsky (talk • contribs) 10:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You should go see it before passing judgment on the film, or on its poster for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right. You could add to the Wikipedia article that much of the negative criticism was based on a misleading trailer. Rakovsky (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A writer who judges a movie based only on its trailer has no business writing movie reviews. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's a clip of the author and some of the other figures in the film: [1] And here's a clip of some comments by Oher at a press conference talking about his selection by the Ravens: [2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clips were good. Maybe if first clip had been the trailer, it would've gotten better coverage. I'm confused- was he originally going to the private school before Leigh took him in? Rakovsky (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As mentioned in the first clip and as depicted at the start of the film, there was a guy who brought his son (also blacks) to the private Christian school to enroll him normally, and Michael, who was then staying with that man as kind of temporary foster care, was brought along also. The film depicts the football coach arguing for allowing Michael in the school on "Christian" grounds, despite his poor grade record, although he was obviously salivating over this kid's chances to help the football team. I don't think the Touhys were in on that discussion at all. It was Sean Jr. who first befriended the big and initially scary-looking Michael, and as the clip and the film note, the family picked him up in their SUV at Thanksgiving when they happened to see him walking through the snow, in just shorts and T-shirt, to sleep in the high school gym. They made him a home and he never left until he graduated high school. It was later, according to the film, that she and the coach helped turn him into a football player, as he did not have a natural instinct for the game at first (which could be Hollywood embellishment, I don't know). When various college coaches (the real guys, by the way, in cameo roles) came by and tried to recruit him, his adoptive family persuaded him to go to their own alma mater, Ole Miss, a fact which in real life triggered an NCAA investigation, but that turned out OK for Michael. That school, ironically, had literally made a federal case out of admitting their first black student, in the early 1960s. Times have somewhat changed for the better since then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You know alot. Rakovsky (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

About certain topics anyway. :) If you weren't around in the 60s, be glad of it. It was nuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Big Mike personally denounce this movie? Cmiych (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Got a source for that? Also, the movie makes the point that he didn't like "Big Mike" as a nickname. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen the movie. Didn't know he didn't like it when we called him that. Good to know. And no, I don't have a source (yet). I'll look. Cmiych (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"We"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of not exposing personal information about myself, I won't go into detail. But by "we" I meant it collectively. There are not two people at this computer, and I don't have multiple personalities. Cmiych (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is whether you were or are acquainted with Michael Oher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And the term aquainted has the proper degree of intensity as well. Cmiych (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You should watch the film and see if it's anywhere near the mark. Hollywood tends to condense and embellish, to make a better story and to make it fit a time frame. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I intend to at some point. But anything I put here would not only be Original Research, but also an inappropriate venue to express my personal views on any of the individuals involved (not to mention, might potentially violate WP:BLP if I even had sources). Great story though. Definitely worth noting that Mike doesn't seem to care about this movie. He seems more concerned with doing his own thing... In fact, I think there actually is a PR from the Ravens to that regard... maybe I can find it... Cmiych (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to see a source in which Michael Oher expresses disdain or indifference toward this film. And keep in mind that he might just not be that crazy about having too much about his early life exposed. In that one press conference, he simply says he had a "rough childhood". He doesn't want to dwell on it, he wants to move on - displaying good maturity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking. I have heard it stated that he made such comments from numerous individuals, but am struggling to find a source. Searching "Michael Oher" + "Blind Side" + comments/remarks/opinions doesn't really tend to yield a lot of results that are what I am looking for. I do know he has been relatively quiet about it, and I don't know if his comments were something said locally that has been relayed or something that was documented by a verifiable source. Cmiych (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hollywood bios can never be taken as documentaries. Walk the Line was made with the approval Johnny Cash's son and others, but some family members thought that the portrayal of Cash's father as kind of an ogre was unfair, or at least exaggerated for dramatic effect. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My opinions would probably be more in line with seeing certain individuals as too gracious, not ogreish. Nevertheless, I'll look for the source. Also, should the real name of the actual high school he attended be included? Cmiych (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Meanwhile, I get the feeling you're trying to tell us something. But maybe you should see the movie first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I definitely should see the movie. I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm trying to hold my tongue in regard to my personal opinions of some of the individuals and clearly not doing a very good job. I have been unable to locate and reliable source documenting Oher's views on the video. I will add the real school. Cmiych (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times can say all they want but it does not make what they say true. I lived in that region of the States (Mississippi-not far from Tennessee), there ARE benevolent Christian whites. We are not ALL members of the KKK. Stop the stereotypes Huffington Post. Race was shown to be an issue. Anyone remember the rednecks at the football game? Racism against whites was shown too. It was a very balanced and accurate film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I have added a brief discussion of the race controversy surrounding this film under the Reception subheading. Let me know what you think, and see my other comment under the Racism subheading on this talk page for more details. Ultrauber (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Spelling

Whoever wrote and/or edited this article has awful spelling abilities, and this needs to be edited completely. I've read fanfictions with better spelling. 67.33.136.91 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to comment and say that the spelling and grammar in the plot of this movie is still atrocious and should be rewritten. For example: "Impressed by Mike's size and athleticism, Cotton gets him admitted despite a poor academic record Michael, later Michael walk out of school when Michael say hi to some childrens they leave soon Michael is befriended by a boy named Sean Jr. "SJ" he suggest that he smiles at them knowing that he try being friendly to them (Jae Head)." -- I barely understand what this run-on sentence is saying. 63.115.63.20 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Death of Micheal's brother

The part in the end where Sandra Bullock's character talks about Micheal's best friend of his brothers death due to a gang fight should be added. 216.86.120.163 (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Box Office: Domestic vs Worldwide

The article says that "After its fifth weekend, the film became the highest grossing sports film ever." First, it is unclear to me if that information comes from a trustworthy source. Second, even if the information is true for US domestic gross, there are clearly sports films which have earned higher worldwide grosses. For example, Box Office Mojo reports that Rocky IV (1985) earned a non-adjusted worldwide gross of US$300 million. Lastly, IMDB reports that The Blind Side (2009) has thus far been released only in the USA and Canada... hardly a true worldwide release. Gobbles414 (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the "highest grossing sports film ever" and "highest grossing film of Sandra Bullock's career" portions of the article. I removed the first for reasons I mentioned earlier. Although the second was from a trustworthy source (Box Office Mojo), it was unclear if The Blind Side is Sandra Bullock's highest grossing film when compared to some of her worldwide grosses. Gobbles414 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Taylor

Lawrence Taylor is mentioned prominently in the film's narration. Can someone explain his influence on Michael? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abenr (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen the movie, but I have read the book. I'm not sure that Lawrence Taylor had a direct influence on Micheal Oher himself. He did indirectly influence Oher, as well as other left (blind side) offensive tackles, in that Taylor's ability made the left tackle position a premium on football teams. NFL teams had to adjust to Taylor's defensive playmaking ability by putting more athletic players to block him on the left side of the offensive line. Otherwise, the teams' quarterbacks were at risk. Essentially you need a big, strong, athletic player to play left tackle. For a more graphic depiction, and if you have a strong stomach, look up "Lawrence Taylor Joe Theisman" on Youtube. --Cdman882 (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Cdman882, you're exactly right. In fact, it mentions that exact point in the opening voice over. Well done, sir!Kp.murphy (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if the "opening voice over" element of the movie (what the "blind side" is all about) were added to the Wiki article. It is so 'key' to the "protective instincts" sub-theme of the movie that it should be elaborated. I'm not enough of a football fan to do it justice. Alanbrowne (talk)

Oscar winning independent research

She just won it 35 seconds ago.--201.166.41.5 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Ya, cite the source. Don't watch it and do independent research. Should be obvious right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.78.82.227 (talk) 04:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism

Seriously?!? When a white person makes a movie that makes us feel sorry for black people, it's racism? How do those "sources" feel when Tyler Perry makes a movie that makes us feel sorry for black people? Do they call that racism too? Of course not! I haven't heard an acutal serious allegation of racism, only the random rantings of a blogger and and an alternative newspaper. -- 67.42.107.14 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section per WP:UNDUE. Erik (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have written a short bit on the race controversy with references and added it under the Reception subheading. I feel that WP:UNDUE does not apply to this specific issue anymore, as the article has since been updated to include a lot of content on the movie's positive reception, and the sources I cite (one scholarly, and one mainstream) show that a racial criticism of The Blind Side is not a view of a tiny minority. Also, per WP:BOLD and WP:SQS, I felt it was important to include non-positive criticism. However, my section could use improvement: The scholarly source I cited is behind a paywall (and I couldn't even provide a direct link to that paywall, because I accessed it through my university's library proxy). Also, there is not an example of someone defending the racial implications of the movie—I couldn't find one anywhere. I'd appreciate any feedback on the section I added, especially regarding how I formatted and included references. Thanks! Ultrauber (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

I feel this article should have a section on the film's accuracy. Filmmakers telling "true" stories nearly always take liberties with the actual stories, and I want to find out what actually happened. This article could use a section like that. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

seconded... although other than a few fictionalized names and dates, i'm not finding much. The only thing major was that the film implied that Oher hadn't played football before going to the private school, where in reality i believe he had played organized football for some time before.Cander0000 (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I am here now. 72.86.42.38 (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Plot

Over the past few months, there has been some tussling over how to write the plot section. For example this IP continuously made edits that, in my opinion, degraded the encyclopedic wording of the article. The IP was eventually blocked for numerous disruptive edits to various movie plots. However, Hanford_West has recently been making similar edits. For example, he wishes to include the phrase "Flashback:" at the beginning of the second paragraph. He also tends to change the plot to use a present tense voice (i.e. "The lady and Michael Oher are talking to each other.") He has been reverted several times by myself and User:Tbhotch, and Tbhotch has advised him to take his proposed edits to the article talkpage. I've decided to start this section to allow some discussion over the edits in question. Any input is welcome. Thanks, WordyGirl90 18:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually Hanford West (talk · contribs) and the IP are the same (same bad grammar, excessive use of the ampersand, edit the same pages). I asked that discuss that intro here and rewording of the paragraph, but he/she ignored me, so what we can do? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It was completely obvious to me, too, but I chose not to bring it up because I was fearful of opening another can of worms with him/her. Well, now they and their socks have been blocked. We'll have to keep an eye out for block evasions. Thanks, WordyGirl90 17:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Message

It's me. My username's Hanford West. My previous change to Blind Side(film) plot got reverted. Why? What's wrong with it. When I saw the film, it started with Michael & the investigator talking. Next, it showed flashback. Isn't that how the plot should be on wikipedia. (Hanford West (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)).

No, user blocked. Any change like this to the article must be reported and request semi-protection. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a "Historical accuracy" section

Whatever you want to call the section, there should be one on how much and where the film takes artistic license and veers from the truth, as there is no mention on the DVD (no commentary, etc.), but many people have questions about what was factual and what wasn't. Cf. the Chariots of Fire article and so forth. Also, the movies IMDB message board has a few good NPOV threads about inaccuracies. Of course, the book (and online interviews) is the best source for separating the fact and fiction of the movie (but I haven't read it). Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing...although I thought this charming film was really good and heart warming, it was still a work of fiction. Some how I just could not get my head around the real historical events. You see in the movie, Michael is allowed to attend the school because of what the coach perceives to be his excellent sporting potential. I thought this was a plot element added by the film's creators to deflect attention/weight from what later transpires with the Tuohys. That they adopt an "unknown" kid from the projects who would later become a very rich sports star. In essence the choice of why him? Was not made by the really rich white folks because they were first and foremost helping "just another" poor child, it was only later did his potential shine through. But to be fair, it's obvious that Sean Tuohy did not make all his $millions from backing lame ducks, so I just can't get my head around the belief they "did not know" he was going to be so good. Personally I don't think the cynicism would be there if the child had not become exceptionally famous like almost everyone else. The film makes it patently clear in the first half that the Tuohys did not suspect Michael had any sporting talent, in fact he is portrayed as being hopeless at first on the training field, he then slowly starts to develop his impressive blocking techniques. But this cinematic version is completely contradicted by the real Oher in an interview on youtube where he emphasised he had been playing basketball and football since he was 10 years old (watch interview). I notice that some of these criticisms have already been addressed in the article but until the "real" Michael Oher story is told here, people are going to think that this fiction is really fact. 86.160.125.239 (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All movies are "works of fiction" to a degree, even documentaries. As always, sourcing is the key. As far as knowing or not knowing someone's going to be good, you don't really "know" that ahead of time. A kid can have potential, sure. But who knew, in 1914, that Babe Ruth would become the icon he became? They knew he was good, but nobody predicted 714 home runs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

According to the Michael Oher article he had played football as a freshman in public high school. The article also states that as a junior at the Christian high school he was named Division II (2A) Lineman of the Year in 2003. According to the the same article the Tuohy's took him in in 2004.

That implies that he was a known football talent before the Tuohy's took him in. A Reader's Digest excerpt of The Blind Side explains in better detail that the Tuohy's had been helping Oher before he started playing football, but that moving in with them happened during the season he went from average player to Lineman of the Year.

P.S. The interview referenced by the anonymous poster above does not say that Oher had been playing football since he was ten, just that he had been watching football since he was ten, and that he had a more nuanced understanding of the game than the film portrays.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Home media

Does anyone besides me feel that the paragraph about the Redbox controversy doesn't need to be there? It has nothing to do with this particular movie, and I suppose you could add the identical paragraph to dozens of different movies. I think it's out of place. Tumunu (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Michael's Birth Mother

His birth mother isn't unknown, Leigh Ann talks to her in the film. Has anyone editing actually properly seen the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.232.61 (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

father's death?

This article originally said Micheal's father's death was an accident. In the movie, it just says his father fell from an overpass. Has anyone thought of putting this in? I was going to but I don't know if I'd be putting it in the right place. 67.8.232.45 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

netflix's "most popular"

with netflix shuttering its dvd's-by-mail product today, they shared that the "most popular" title was this. https://about.netflix.com/en/news/netflix-dvd-the-final-season 174.21.67.81 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Conservatorship, not Adoption

It's now claimed it was never an adoption, but a conseratorship. This means "adoptive" parents might be called wrong in this case, and the article needs to be adjusted to reflect this difference. I'm asking for NPOV help on this. https://www.smh.com.au/culture/movies/the-blind-side-s-football-star-says-he-was-not-adopted-but-tricked-20230815-p5dwiz.html https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/38190720/blind-side-subject-michael-oher-alleges-adoption-was-lie-family-took-all-film-proceeds --KimYunmi (talk) 02:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

This isn't just about how it was a conservatorship instead of an adoption. This is that the entire foundation of the premise was a lie. Assuming all the facts will come out in the lawsuit, the issue is related to the movie and book in that the profits of both went to the family and none Oher himself. Given that this is explosive news that is now in regular mass media, my recommendation is that this warrants its own section (maybe call it Controvery or Lawsuit) with details on the lawsuit's allegations. Reporting on what's being alleged in the suit itself is NPOV, IMO. Traveliter (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

For the film, in particular, another significant aspect is the discussion of him not receiving royalties Tiggeritian (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)