MovieChat Forums > Redbelt (2008) Discussion > Why did they need to fix the fights?

Why did they need to fix the fights?

posted 16 years ago by nick-1036
6 replies | jump to latest

I didn't see any advantage to them to do this, and on top of that they said the fighters didn't even need to know it was fixed. What? They were so sure the guy who picked (fixed) the handicap would always lose? I doubt that anyone could be sure of that? So why did they need to fix it with the marble trick? Especially for the undercard where no one cares which fighter wins? Was it just another plot element thrown in to show how corrupt they were? The fighters don't even need to know? That's absurd, it's not fixed if they don't know.

In addition, one of the things fans like about this kind of fighting, UFC, MMA, full contact etc is that it's not fixed as boxing sometimes was and wrestling always is. So to make this film about this kind of fighting and then have promoters of the worst kind "fixing" the fight while dumb ass TV hosts don't know? Wow, that's a double insult, take a MMA hero and make him a chump because he can't see a fix right in front of him, that makes him look stupid, then overall, to imply that this sport is capable of, and likely, fixed is an insult to a sport that is not fixed.

[–] LeeMall 16 years ago

Ricky Jay's character speaks of "velocity". The fighter they would have "picked" to win would probably have ticked all the right boxes. He'd have a story, be good looking, triumphed through adversity... the full shibang. Something which the promoters could sell for FUTURE fights.

And i would say the fights need to be fixed. Each of these guys are experts of their craft. Whilst having one arm bound wouldnt be a problem for one of these guys Vs me... against ANOTHER master of the craft i'd say its a very safe bet that the fighter with 2 free arms would win. And if they dont.... BANG! they have a story! They have an incredible win by a guy with a bound arm. Thats some velocity right there. They couldnt really lose. And if they REALLY DID want to push their original handpicked winner... its as Ricky Jay said... "Everything's in the rematch"

I didn't mean to call you a meatloaf, Jack

[–] suspiria56 16 years ago

absolutely right, boat tree fiddy.

As always with Ricky Jay & David Mamet, so much of Jay's characters dialogues define what the movie is all about....another key line by Jay: "let's financialise this"

"Gran'pa was always tha best...."

[–] steamedsoup 16 years ago

All things being equal, I imagine the reason promoter types would want to "fix" the fight would be to ensure the more marketable fighters do well.

Essentially, the promoters want to reap the dramatic story-telling and product-selling benefits of wrestling (with all its storylines and drama and pre-planned results) without having to sacrifice all their credibility by making the sport laughably phony the way that wrestling is.

This way, the fight isn't technically in the bag, since there's still a chance the handicapped guy could win. And, really, the promoters would be fine with that -- since having the handicapped guy pull off the upset every now and then would be great TV.

And since the fighter isn't in on it, this means the promoter doesn't have to babysit the fighters while negotiating and paying people off to get them to agree to throw the fight. All the promoter has to do now is make sure the fellow who controls the marbles knows what's up. Everything should take care of itself from there.

[–] djmils 16 years ago

There are gamblers and gambling shown throughout the movie. Fixing has primarily been used to either promote boxers or make money on "sure" bets.

[–] mrliteral 16 years ago

The real question is not why they wanted to fix the fights; that's obvious - but why would they go through the trouble of scamming Mike Terry into debt so he'd go against his principles and enter the competition if they'd already planned on fixing his fight so he'd win? They didn't need him at all. I mean, if the fight's fixed, it's fixed; who cares who the fighters are? Seems like a lot of trouble for such an interchangeable position.

And how does he figure it out? He just HAPPENS to walk past the dressing room of the sleight-of-hand guy, practicing his trick with the DOOR OPEN, so any moron watching the movie will understand they've fixed the fights by giving one guy the black marble...so, so stupid, yet because the movie has Mamet's name on it people think it's clever. It's only clever if it's clever, people, it's not clever 'cause it's Mamet. This movie ain't that complicated; it's actually quite stupid.

http://moviesonthemind.blogspot.com/

[–] hubbapasha 15 years ago

The "fixing" comes from corrupting Mike's system. I think it's hard to fix an MMA fight in real life. The whole point of the movie, as far as I can tell, is that MMA competition isn't a real fight. Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu master Royce Gracie was in the UFC at the beginning, but eventually left because they using rules like the prohibition of biting, eye-gouging and testicle-damaging, to keep the fights from being too barbaric for pay-per-view. The marbles were a metaphor for the handicap imposed on real fighters by rules.