I'll say this--Hollywood is to story telling as the pop charts are to music. A popular film has broader appeal the clearer the protagonist/antogonist relationship is, and the antogonist in Morphy's story is what? His illness? The Morphy character is a compelling one (BG, you know how I feel there), but the "Pride and Sorrow" story (ala John Nash) can only be offered as tragedy, utimately, and actually winds up as an anti-chess theme. It's the same thing with Jeff Sarwer--eventually, he has to give up chess--compelling human drama which Hollywood could ruthlessly exploit, for sure, but the resolution is an anti-chess message. It's tough to come up with a positive story that both promotes chess and produces compelling drama--that's why I think a movie of one of the old tournaments presented as a light comedic farse might be a better approach (maybe not as over-the-top as, say, Monty Python, but in the same vein).
BradStone, if I weren't convinced that you are either trolling, or attached to an incredibly simpleminded, negative bias, I would give you plenty of reasonable arguments. I am done responding to you. It's a shame you are so ignorant or craving of attention that you have gone into a thread about chess player movie ideas and claimed so vehemently that there is no good reason to make a movie about chess players. And on a chess forum.
These aren't "chess movies" but stories in which chess factors in. Chess, like several other disciplines, attracts unusual people, sometimes boring people, sometimes quite colorful people. It's such people that make a story.
Wrong, bud. The characters are the story.
The Hollywood version: Alec Hyne - mad Nazi turns chess player and beats everyone until he is stopped by American hero Pillsbury in the title match in Pearl Harbor 1941, where Pillsbury dies a hero in the attack by German forces sent in to help Hyne. Kate Beckinsale is the woman they both love. The crescendo of the film is the last move of the match, where a dying Pillsbury counters Hyne's “Kviin to eff drei, check und mate, verdamt!” with “Ain't no mate buddy, pawn takes rook e1 and mate on yourself!”
I was thinking of something like the Steinitz-Tarrasch-Lasker-Tchigorin rivalry, with the negotiations and intrigues for the great Hastings 1895 tournament, which was won by a whiskey-drinking, cigar-smoking, womanizing nobody from America. You could do a tongue-in-cheek version of it, for example, without really deviating from the historical record--just present the absurd side of the personalities and disputes involved, and they were colorful.
I really am in no mood to read through all 10(!) pages of this thread, and I'm sure his name has been mentioned many times already, but for me there would be no better selection than Alekhine.
But Lasker had some very dramatic games and had his wealth stolen by the German government forcing him out of retirement!
Alekhine, Spielmann, Morphy, Blackburne, Charousek, Janowski.
brad pitt as ruben fine
What's your point? And stop hyperbolizing... "dramatic games," huh? For a feature length film?
Dramatic games of what?
You should really read Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy and How to Defend in Chess to understand what I mean. There would be a five second scene of board positions from his game against Bogolubov in Endgame Strategy (as it was a seemingly hopeless position he drew) and his Napier and Schlechter games in How to Defend in Chess. Actual chess players familiar with the games will see the positions and go, "Holy crap I actually remember studying that game!" The overhead of the board will be so short it won't eat up much air time while still focusing on his life.
Charousek died at 26, having showed much promise, and beaten Lasker who said he would one day play a title match against him. Learnt to play at 14, was so poor he had to copy chess books by hand in the public library, and lived in Romantic times.
Spielmann possibly died by starvation in foreign land after escaping from the Nazis, his autobiographical manuscript disappeared, and he had seen much in his life.
Blackburne played more chess than maybe anyone during a very long life, and both seemed to love and hate the game going by some of the things he said, but he doesn't seem to have been boring in any way.
Janowski was arrogant but interesting, made himself impossible with most people but really loved chess and never really doubted that he would become World Champion no matter how horribly he was beaten, and he was after all a great player.
Morphy, well, for all the obvious reasons. Genius with a rather sad life, not too normal and boring though.
Same thing with Alekhine, doesn't seem to have been an all too nice person but far from boring, lots of both personal and political controversies as well as sudden death in foreign land while still World Champion. Maybe had more movie material in his life than any other top player.
The Turk Automaton
Borislav Ivanov? Anyone mention the great shoedini yet?
Yeah I can really see a movie reviewer using this phrase in a film review:
"You should really read Shereshevsky's Endgame Strategy and How to Defend in Chess to understand what I mean."
So what do you expect this film to gross, like $30?
You asked about dramatic, and just telling you it is.
BradStone: Hey, lets go see a movie!
"Friends": Oh Jesus Christ...
"Friends": Brad, all the movies you like suck.
BradStone: I've got my finger on the pulse of the public! I know what everyone is interested in!
"Friends": Honestly Brad, I've had my fill of comic book characters.
BradStone: Why, what do you want to do? Entertain yourself?! That's a laugh...
"Friends": No one loves me enough to kill me...
"Friends": Brad, is there any way I can pay you to go away?
or Magnus Carlsen.
Well then Purchase the book "Diary of a Chess Queen" She actually had quite an amazing life!
Given that it seems that he isn't trolling, he is certainly not worth responding to.