Do We Want the Realism or the Fantasy of Rounders?
Why does every poker movie that comes out have to be compared to Rounders?
I get the fact that Rounders is considered by many to be "The Movie" when it comes to poker because of the realistic portrayal.
But this notion that every movie that fails to live up to the "Rounders Standard" is bad eludes me.
The problem with many of the movies that have been made in recent years is that they try and cash in on poker's popularity without showing how the game is really played.
The two movies, in my opinion, that came the closest to showing realistic poker portrayals were both mockumentaries.
If you have never seen "The Grand" or "Hitting the Nuts", then you have missed two movies that have accurately captured the essence of live poker.
Yes, both movies are over the top but so was the way the game has been portrayed. Causal fans like the characters, the confrontation and the drama shown on TV.
At an amateur level, Hitting the Nuts I think did very well in showing poker at the home game and low level tournament level. If you have watched it, you can probably think of real life examples of nearly every player.
Another question is, do we really want a movie that overly exposes the reality of poker?
We want a movie that hypes the game in a positive way to draw in more people, not one that shows what really happens in the game.
How many players would come to poker if they saw how many so called "pros" are actually waist deep in debt to backers or are struggling to pay bills.
How many would play after seeing someone reach the height of the game and then spiral down to the point where they have to take a job to make a bankroll to play $3-$6 limit.
The reality for most would have been the first few minutes of Rounders.
We want a realistic fantasy when it comes to the portrayal of poker, not reality. They want to see the Negreanu's, Ivey's and Mercier's of the world and believe they can do the same.