Yea yeah, I understand the moral victory. And the guy gets to ball Renee Russo. Still, the guy blew the U.S. open, let's Don Johnson, the enemy, beat him and we're supposed to act like Costner came out on top. BS!
Futhermore, Costner did EXACTLY what Don Jonson said he would do.. Blow up. Right, I'm supposed to feel good because the foil of the story "settled" for second.... That ending is just painful, but also very trite in what it tries to accomplish.
i agree with you partially. as in, the part when johnson says he will BLOW IT hurts after you see the movie more than once, knowing he's right...
but doesn't costner hit the ball from the rough into the hole?
i think what theyre trying to show is that Costner's character will be remembered, and will now be a cult hero, and Johnson's character will be forgotten because he's just a PAR guy...
or something...
"CONFORM TO CREATIVITY"r.o. films
Because that shot was a defining moment. And when a defining moment comes along, you either define the moment, or the moment defines you. The whole movie foreshadowed the ending. He doesn't change. He's always going to go for it and prove that he can make the shot when everyone says he can't. Like Renee Russo says at the end he is immortal. Ten years from now, no one is going to remember who won that tournament, but they will remember his 12. If you noticed, I have quoted pretty much the whole movie. But don't think everytime I watch I don't want it to end differently. And that is the whole point. It's the greatest sports movie of all time. No exaggeration, I have watched it at least 500 times! Hope that helps.
shareI'm dumb when it comes to golf. Can you help me out CiaMia by telling me if a 12 is supposed to be good or what? I don't understand the scoring in golf. I love this movie too. I think it's really funny and good. Thanks.
shareone189-
A 12 is a bad score. The whole point to that hole was that everyone said he couldn't make the shot, and he wanted to prove them wrong. It took him 6 tries, but he made it, and that's all that matters! Each time the ball drops into the water that counts as a shot, and each time he takes another ball to replay the shot that is counted as a shot, and then the shot itself counts as another shot. So, his first shot was 1, then he hit 2 into the water. Then he dropped 3, in the same spot, and hit 4 into the water again. Dropped 5. Hit 6 into the water. Dropped 7. Hit 8 into the water. Then dropped 9. Hit 10 into the water(rolled off the green into the water). Dropped 11(his last ball before disqualification) and hit 12 in the hole! Now, the higher the score the worse your doing. At the time his score was -8 with that hole his final score was -1 which actually pays like 200-500k in real life and gets him invited back to next years tourney. Hope I didnt confuse you even more!
Yikes...that's a real mess, huh? Thanks for explaining it though. I was hoping a 12 was good. Oh well. I think what we need is a sequel and this time our Roy-Boy wins the Open. I'm all for a sequel.
shareCheck your math. If he was at -8 (which he was) and shot a 12 on the last whole, that would put him at +4 at the end. That doesn't pay so well, but does allow him to continue his pro career by going back to Qual school and go back out on the tour (IF he chooses that).
shareHe shot a 12 which is 7 strokes over par. -8+7=-1. Learn how golf is scored before you post
share"Because that shot was a defining moment. And when a defining moment comes along, you either define the moment, or the moment defines you. The whole movie foreshadowed the ending. He doesn't change. He's always going to go for it and prove that he can make the shot when everyone says he can't. Like Renee Russo says at the end he is immortal. Ten years from now, no one is going to remember who won that tournament, but they will remember his 12. If you noticed, I have quoted pretty much the whole movie. But don't think everytime I watch I don't want it to end differently. And that is the whole point. It's the greatest sports movie of all time. No exaggeration, I have watched it at least 500 times! Hope that helps."
Brilliant. I couldn't have put it any better than that.
Nice job, CiaMia316.
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
If you have seen this movie 500 times you quote it all over you would know that Rene Russo say's that no one will remember the open in "five" years not "ten". I'm not watching it but even I, who has seen it maybe 10 or twenty times knows that.
shareRoy McAvoy would be remembered as an idiot. Nobody remembers Jean Van de Velde because he almost won the British Open at Carnoustie, they remember that he failed miserably on the last hole beginning with his decision to hit a wood off the tee.
Geez, finally, a Jean Van de Velde reference. Van de Velde had the '99 British Open in hand when he reached the 72nd hole of the tournament. All he had to do was play the last hole conservatively and make no more than a double bogey and that "major" was his. Van de Velde played an errant driver off that final hole which sent him on a triple bogey odyessy that had everything but Rod Serling. Van de Velde made a desperate ballsy putt on the final green to get into the playoff after his bonehead adventure. I really wish he would have prevailed and won the playoff but he didn't. I can't imagine that hellacious morning after to wake up and deal with the aftermath. I still consider it one of my greatest sports viewing moments watching it all unfold. It was absolutly incredible, but still not as absurd as Hollywood's ending of Tin Cup.
share[deleted]
But it is lame. McAvoy will be remembered as a f-up. He had the U.S. Open in the bag and blew it because he was stupid. At least Simms, if he hadn't done so already, will be remembered as someone who won a Major. Golf isn't about who can hit it the furthest. It is also about course management, and managing yourself. McAvoy was incapable of either. Jean Van de Velde melted down and blew the British Open at Carnoustie. People don't remember his decision to hit the driver fondly and say "At least he was going for it". They think he was an idiot for not hitting a 2-iron. Phil Mickelson isn't congratulated for hitting driver at the 18th at the U.S. Open. He even calls it stupid.
I guess part of the point of the ending was that McAvoy didn't care about history.
Davie is right here.....the ending might make you feel good but Roy,while being remembered,is going to go into the history books as a screwup nutjob that blew it and had a major meltdown at the worst time.....now some of you might argue that "at least he'll be remembered" but he also could have been remembered as the golf pro from bumblefrick nowhere who shot from nowhere to win the US Open! She loved him and he'd have gotten the girl either way,but he threw away thousands and thousands of dollars as well by this.
shareWe don't know how he'll be remembered because we don't know what happens sext. Maybe he gets on the tour and shows the world the golfer he thinks he is or maybe he screws it all up and is back at the range. Smart money's on the latter. lol
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
Given his obvious talent -- and the indication he "learned something", he'll probably have a decent pro career going forward.
To thine own self be true. Maybe 'Cup does get on the tour, but he is what he is, an overconfident screw up, ala John Daly, always had been. Most likely always would be.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
Costner had balls. Johnson didn't. If you didn't get that, you got no balls either.
why shoot the breeze about it, when you could be about it
Nice guy. If you want to talk about balls, don't use a golf movie as your basis. Why don't you use "Ice Castles" while you're at it.
Anyway, the ending was so tongue-in-cheek, that Renee Russo practically had to spell it out by saying "and he'll always be second." If the message was that clear, they wouldn't have had to put a bow-tie on it like that. It was contrived.
It's true that in this particular case it'll be the guy who came first no-one remembers. Just think of the 1999 Open Championship. Who's the golfer that comes to mind for most of us from that event? Paul Lawrie or Jean Van De Velde?
Hard to recall any aspect of Lawrie's eventual play-off win (apart from that great 4-iron at the 18th of course) but easy to replay in the mind even now every one of Van De Velde's car crash 7.
Mind you, bet he'd rather have won the Auld Claret Jug than be remembered for cocking it up.
Like Molly says.
In 6-7 years time no one is going to remember who won the Open.
But remember JVV or Tin Cup.
The "lame ending" is actually the moral of the whole story, one I fully agree with, and a big reason I love this film. That is, that each man gets to choose his own definition of success in life. Roy never really wanted to win the tournament. It was all a means to winning the girl. Turns out he gets the girl before winning the tournament. So, what's the other thing he really wanted? Remember the poetic speeches about defining moments and immortality. As Molly points out afterwards, making a 12 by holing out a 250 yard 3-wood over water on the last hole of the US Open is "immortal", and actually more memorable than winning the Open. Roy has succeeded on his own terms. He's won at the game he chose to play. He's avoided the horrible trap that ensnares so many, and leads to so much unhappiness, i.e. working toward someone else's definition of success.
share-xstevec
Excellent explanation for the ending of this movie. This is a movie where you either "get it" or just don't understand. He aspired to greatness and recognition and he achieved that.
And Kevin Costner is connected to TWO of the greatest sports movies of all time. "Bull Durham" and now "Tin Cup".
Less about the sport....More about the man.
-3 people can keep a secret, if 2 of them are dead
Field of Dreams makes many Top Ten All-Time Sports movies lists.
Ok, why didnt he take the lay up. Even if he tied he would have been given the chance too play the same shot again and at tleast he wouldnt have blown ranking points and money. They do play the last hole usually in a play off yes? (im not sure).
shareActually, if the U.S. Open is tied at the end of regulation (72 holes), all players that are tied for the lead play an 18-hole playoff on Monday afternoon to decide the winner.
shareExcellent summary.
shareIs it just me or does Kevin Costner come in 3rd? Jacobsen was in teh lead and Costner was a point behind and don johnson a point behind him. Meaning that johnson was 1 point too far and settled for second for hitting par and costener being a point ahead of johnson could have drawn for a playoff with jacobsen.
sharetwo things:
McAvoy doesn't come in third, probably around 15th after going 7 over par on 18.
the ending was the best ending I've ever seen in a movie. Completely unexpected given the movies' formulaic nature, but completely fulfilling. And half the point is that Simms doesn't win (despite the initial poster's thoughts). He beats McAvoy, but finishes second, which, to Cup, means First Loser. Simms doesn't care about winning, just finishing solidly. He essentially plays "not to lose".
Dr Molly tells Roy that finishing in the top 15 allows him to play in
next years open.
kcw131 is right on the money by saying he probably finished 15th.
I think the scene in question is one of the all-time great movie scenes and Roy McAvoy is an amazing character that I'll remember forever. That scene gives me chills every time I watch it.
shareThe entire movie is built around Costner's character being his own worst enemy. But somehow he manages, at last, to make it work for him. A very old theme with a somewhat new twist.
"Your Grace is unjust. If I cannot help Your Grace in the great matter of the queen." "I have no queen! Katherine's not my wife! No priest can make her so!"
Wow, you got chills from seeing a guy score a 12 on the final hole of a major when he needed a five to tie? Gave me the dry heaves.
shareI agree that it was a lame ending. I've always been disappointed by the ending.
On the other hand, the writer wrote him/herself into a corner. Having Roy win the US Open would have been a cheeseball ending that would have been hard to pull off.
That said ... how we're supposed to feel good about a guy making a fool out of himself by hitting ball after ball into the water is beyond me. "He didn't change!" ... so what? Blowing the biggest opportunity of your life by being stubborn is not a good quality ... it's the quality of an idiot.
I actually think I'd take the cheeseball ending over the existing ending. I'm not a particularly big fan of ending a film with a dull thud.
I liked the ending because it was unique. And her (Rene Russo) point made sense.
Wow, you got chills from seeing a guy score a 12 on the final hole of a major when he needed a five to tie? Gave me the dry heaves.Gee, what a coincidence - that's what your post above did for me.
I've enjoyed reading all of your comments. There are some very good ones. The comment with which I agree the most is from davey4u:
"But it is lame. McAvoy will be remembered as a f-up. He had the U.S. Open in the bag and blew it because he was stupid. At least Simms, if he hadn't done so already, will be remembered as someone who won a Major. Golf isn't about who can hit it the furthest. It is also about course management, and managing yourself. McAvoy was incapable of either. Jean Van de Velde melted down and blew the British Open at Carnoustie. People don't remember his decision to hit the driver fondly and say "At least he was going for it". They think he was an idiot for not hitting a 2-iron. Phil Mickelson isn't congratulated for hitting driver at the 18th at the U.S. Open. He even calls it stupid.
I guess part of the point of the ending was that McAvoy didn't care about history."
I understand what you guys who like the ending are saying. Many of you express yourselves very well.
But...
The object of the game is to win, fair and square. I can understand a sportsman refusing to cheat in order to win. After all, many baseball players actually decided *NOT* to take steroids. Imagine that in this day and age! But to go into the tank just because you're stupid is......stupid.
Oh, I get the ending alright. Hollywood writers win a TKO and a trip to the bank by pummeling the audience with schmaltz.
I agree with Ed-145 and davey4u. This movie had the worst ending in Hollywood history. Anyone who thinks this ending was good, either doesn't play golf or certainly doesn't appreciate golf. It would have been better if Simms went for the green and came up short; while our scarecrow, played by Costner, finally made it to Oz and found his brain to lay up and win with a birdie putt. Playing golf is half mental and the reason Tiger kicks Phil's ass all the time is because Tiger has a brain and Phil is an idiot (sometimes). Van de Velde was golf's greatest idiot until Tin Cup came along. Even I made a 5 on the 18th at Carnoustie.
As for this being the best sports or golf movie of all time, that is ridiculous. Tin Cup doesn't even come close to Bull Durham and there are better golf movies, too.
The rules violations are inexcusible. He should have a 2 stroke penalty for asking for advice and another 2 strokes for receiving advice. Other sports movies seem to be able to play within the rules.
Rene Russo is a terrible actress and her performance here was no different.
It's a good movie, but it could have been a LOT better.
Interesting how you pretty much slam the entire film (and Russo) then state at the end of your post "It's a good movie".
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
I didn't slam the entire film. I thought the casting was excellent, with the exception of Russo. I liked the storyline of a down and out range pro, making it all the way to the US Open. Cheech was great, Don was perfect, good jokes, etc. Most of it was fine. But, it could have been a lot better. From your posts, you obviously love this movie. If you think the ending is great, either you don't golf, or you don't really "understand" golf. Any true golfer is disgusted by this ending of having to watch an idiot at work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. If he wanted to 'beat his demons', he should have learned from his mistakes. The lesson of this movie should have been that you need to know when to "go for it" and when to lay up. Roy never learned that lesson.
shareDunno, I see your point, but I still (really) loved the film, and have NO problem with Russo as an actress.
But you're right, I don't golf, so there ya go. Personally, I liked the fact the ending was not conventional. You're 100% correct: he really DIDN'T 'learn', but managed to (in a rather demented way - lol - I admit) 'win' anyway. HE'LL be the one they all remember, and he got the girl.
If that makes any sense...
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
"If you think the ending is great, either you don't golf, or you don't really "understand" golf. Any true golfer is disgusted by this ending of having to watch an idiot at work. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. If he wanted to 'beat his demons', he should have learned from his mistakes. The lesson of this movie should have been that you need to know when to "go for it" and when to lay up. Roy never learned that lesson."
Wise words. I agreed with people defending the ending until I read this.
[deleted]
To thine own self be true only goes so far. If your own self is destructive you're an idiot if you stay the course.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
I think the problem is that "serious golfers" get too hung up on winning technically. (One reason golf is such a gay game.) That makes it too hard for them to appreciate the movie, and the ending.
The point of the film is what others have already said -- winning on your own terms, defining winning for yourself, etc. To Costner, beating the hole was more important than winning the tournament, and definitely more important than coming in second. And he eventually beat the hole. He also positioned himself for a successful pro (and endorsement) career in the process.
I think some serious golfers will in fact enjoy this ending. I was once told, in a golf lesson, that the whole point to driving was hitting the ball as hard and as far as possible, even if it didn't place exactly. And I think there's some truth to that. The real point to any sport, ultimately, is not to "win" -- it's to enjoy the game. And when it comes to *professional* sports, the point is still not actually to win -- it's to make as much money as possible.
Roy would not have been guaranteed of victory if he had laid up initially (correct?). Even if he had, it would've been an empty victory to him if he didn't conquer the hole on his own terms. Doing so is what gave him true joy -- more than if he had beaten another golfer. (So what if he did?) And it also positioned him for endorsements and fame, fulfilling the financial aspect of the game.
One can say they're personally unhappy with the ending, or Roy's choices. One can also say that about pretty much anything else anyone else does in life. But to say that Roy was somehow inherently wrong in his choices -- when he's still launching a likely successful pro career, and experienced deep personal satisfaction with his choice, is simply, and only, a personal assessment, with no broader validity.
there are many excellent arguments for and against the ending, but here's the part that bothers me.
He screws up AGAIN and decides to go for it because he knows he can "make the shot".
that's all well & good, but since he doesn't make it on the first try (we all know it took several) then he doesn't truly "make the shot" because he puts in the water over & over. The whole idea of deciding to go for it or lay up is whether or not you can make the shot on your first try. If you don't, then you did not make the shot. I'm sure simms could have made the shot if he tried 4 or 5 times too.
"everything i say, by definition, is a promise." CARMINE SABATINI -(The Freshman)
roy’s a complete idiot! he shouldn’t have gone for it in 2. tho, i can buy that. roy was always an idiot up to that point. but not dropping up by the green after hitting it in the water? that’s stupid & lower than the normal stupid levels roy exhibits. almost ruins the movie for me!
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "... I drank what?"
But he carries Rene Russo off in the end while Simms is flirting with some lame golf groupie. Who really won?
shareAmen.
And I quote:
“Nice 'Par', David.”
------
Wait a minute... who am I here?
Simms. Sorry, Russo is the female equivalent of Jay Leno. Not ugly, but certainly not all that. Personality would have a lot to do with it.
This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.
I saw several of the already posted golf mistakes. But I haven't notice anybody talk about the mistakes at the end. Costner finally hits the green on the 18th, his ball goes in, everyone goes crazy, several spectators dive into the pond looking for the ball that Costner threw in after finally holing his shot. Where's the control? Did I miss something? Wasn't Don Johnson still hitting his 3rd shot? And those spectators diving into the pond - one of them comes up holding the "famous" ball and the other divers have nothing. How did they know that one ball was the one Costner threw in the pond? He himself had hit several other balls into the pond just before. How did they know they hadn't retrieved one of those instead? Not to mention the pond must have been FULL of golf balls anyway. I know, I know, kind of anal of me maybe. But it's STUPID mistakes like these that ruin a movie for me.
shareThe ending was kinda bittersweet for me.
It was nice he made the shot, but in the end he did exactly what Simms said he would do and blow up. Just like he always he did.
Like when he was qualifying for the Open and Romeo was his caddy and he wouldn't lay-up for one of the shots. Then Romeo reminds him what he did a few years earlier when he wouldn't lay-up and was going for it. Then he quit because he wouldn't change.
He then did the exact same thing at the US Open when he had a clear chance of winning. He never learned from previous mistakes and still went for it.
It's like he never really learned a lesson.
How many times do you hear coaches or players saying "we got away from what got us here"? That's how I look at it. He was simply doing what got him there in the first place. He tried playing the conservative way in the first round and it got him an 83. For all we know, he tries to tone it down on the last hole, gets out of whack and ends up blowing the hole anyway. He played the way that he got there. Golf, probably more so than any other sport, your mental game HAS to be on, and if he went away from what he knows, his mental game would have been blown.
share